Sparked interest to join the LF crew. Some questions to help me begin!:)

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
--
Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

You're a genuine nutter.

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote (in part):

I do B&W film processing in trays and if I don't have time, I have a pro
lab do it. I have never had a problem with scratches in tray
development, but I do at most 2 sheets at a time in an 11x14 tray and
never let the sheets overlap. B&W film has electrostatic properties that
attracts dust, so I find it a real problem. I have had no problems with
dust on color reversal film.

I have the opposite experience, at least with the film I develop at home.
The worst dust I get is when processing C-41 negatives. Dust embedded in the
emulsion, and I assume this is not a manufacturing defect since the same
type of film at a pro-lab has no dust. I never get dust in the emulsion of
B&W films (Tri-X and Plus-X in the old days, and T-Max films these days). In
any case, none of that would be accounted for by electrostatic properties of
wet film or drying film in a somewhat humid room.

Now when it comes to printing, I can get dust on negatives, but with 4x5, I
can easily see it by looking at the film "sideways" and I have a Zone-VI
High Voltage ElectroZapper brush to remove the dust that works well. The
last time I looked at the price of those things, I cringed. All they are is
a neon sign transformer, a heavy cable, an ionizer point, and a fairly good
quality paint brush with metal ferule. Couldn't possibly cost over $100 to make.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 13:20:01 up 72 days, 15:52, 3 users, load average: 4.38, 4.23, 4.13

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote

In some places, e.g. Paris, if you have anything
professional looking (that includes a tripod with any camera),
you will be considered a professional and need a permit
to shoot anywhere, even in a park where many other tourists are
happily snapping away!

YMMV: I have never had any problems in France, including
cathedral interiors.

Is this recently, and in Paris? New laws were passed a few years ago.
I've been going to France for 20+ years and have been discrete
with tripods and not had a problem, but have heard a number
of photographers say they have been denied the opportunity
to photograph in Paris.

A lot of it is karma and which flic is walking the beat that day.

Yep.

To insure a lack of interference wear biker leather, don't wash,
don't shave and talk to yourself.

;-)

Roger

Jean-David Beyer wrote:

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote (in part):


I do B&W film processing in trays and if I don't have time, I have a pro
lab do it. I have never had a problem with scratches in tray
development, but I do at most 2 sheets at a time in an 11x14 tray and
never let the sheets overlap. B&W film has electrostatic properties that
attracts dust, so I find it a real problem. I have had no problems with
dust on color reversal film.


I have the opposite experience, at least with the film I develop at home.
The worst dust I get is when processing C-41 negatives.

I should clarify: negative films attract more dust, so not just B&W.

Dust embedded in the
emulsion, and I assume this is not a manufacturing defect since the same
type of film at a pro-lab has no dust. I never get dust in the emulsion of
B&W films (Tri-X and Plus-X in the old days, and T-Max films these days). In
any case, none of that would be accounted for by electrostatic properties of
wet film or drying film in a somewhat humid room.

There is an article on kodak.com a few years ago about Kodak
changing the base of Tmax films in order to reduce the
dust attraction. It is a real effect, but I don't remember the
technical details. I did a quick search but didn't find the
Kodak article.

Roger

Now when it comes to printing, I can get dust on negatives, but with 4x5, I
can easily see it by looking at the film "sideways" and I have a Zone-VI
High Voltage ElectroZapper brush to remove the dust that works well. The
last time I looked at the price of those things, I cringed. All they are is
a neon sign transformer, a heavy cable, an ionizer point, and a fairly good
quality paint brush with metal ferule. Couldn't possibly cost over $100 to make.

In article ,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:

I should clarify: negative films attract more dust, so not just B&W.

Could be that the dust is positively charged ;^)
--
George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.

Hi Roger,

No offense to you, but I can see CLEAR differences between photos I'm
viewing on photo sites. Why don't you give it a try? Which shots are
film, which are digital...what format, what size sensor (crop/full
frame) in digital camera?

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=285775877&size=o

Same photographer for these next two:

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=334638289&size=o
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=327057326&size=o

Trickier one

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=114944859&size=o
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=288796848&size=o

How about this one...very difficult to tell...

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=302642961&size=o
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=132011750&size=l


A last one...film or digital?

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=287323587&size=o


I agree with you that "most" everything has to do with the
photographer. A person working with the best stuff and is good, but
not superb will not be as good as a person working with so-so stuff but
is superb at what he/she does.

Canon 5D looks lifeless to me....but in actual life, seeing the prints,
maybe I would be tricked seeing an image done with a 5D and one done
with a Bronica 645 and some Velvia 50...

Hi Nicholas and to others that have been posting...

I have decided that in the end, it does seem that while there are
hand-holding types available, many seem to be a task to use short
lenses on. Their appeal to me from the get-go was that they were
claimed to be hand-holdable. Now I have decided that with so much
money that goes into the film and the fact that this will be my
"serious" setup, I want to look into other types such as the monorail
design, though still keeping the field/press type camera in mind since
they are quite cheap.

Some more questions that maybe need a new thread:

1) How is a Horseman to a Toyo to a Sinar to a, etc. type camera? In
other words, are there any real benefits of having one over the other?
I have been told, for example, that a Toyo 45C or CX is not quite as
"smooth" as the Horseman, but will do no different in terms of
flexibility and image quality with use of similar lenses on each
camera.

2) I saw, noted, that Nikkor/Schneider/Fuji/Rodenstock/etc. are the
primary lenses. Of these lenses, which ones are most
contrasty/saturated/colorful? I know some mentioned that the film is
of greater importance or something to that extent...but I don't agree
with this. I do agree that film plays a great role on color, but that
the lens has a greater role. So which of these lenses would make the
best choices to acheive a nice color rendition, again, similar to a
Rollei 6008i w/Rollei glass and the same film type used?

3) Is there a way to use a viewfinding device on view based cameras to
see the image right side up or does one get used to the upside down way
of seeing things? I really could not get used to the left-right
movements of the Rollei setup I had when looking through the waistlevel
finder...I found it to be way too distracting and I could never
perceive what "exactly" my final image would be...But I can imagine a
world upside down, though distracting at first, would not be too bad
compared to the left-right motion based cameras. Any thoughts on how
difficult it is coming from the viewfinding type world to get used to
the new world of being upside down?

Any camera recommendations, now knowing that I will be leaning more
towards a view type camera since I'll use the setup specifically with a
tripod and use a digital cam for my quick snaps or convenience factor?

Thanks everyone again. As I say, I'm still looking at the smaller
cameras, but now beginning to give a long hard look at the larger ones
since as I redundantly state, I will be tripoding everything.

Regards!!!


Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"Mike" wrote

When you consider the cost of a single sheet
of color film and developing, it can be $4 per exposure!

OTOH, for black and white, being about as cheap as
possible:

Arista EDU 4x5 $ 0.35 / sheet
Processing chemicals $ 0.15

Say somewhere around 50 cents/exposure.

I wouldn't recommend large-format for a trip to Europe.

I took my Sinar [big honking view camera with tripod
to match], no regrets. Get one of those luggage carts
and strap everything to it. Luggage cart lasts
about 2-3 days of being dragged around on cobblestones,
rocks, curbs ...

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Progressiveabsolution wrote:
Hi Nicholas and to others that have been posting...

I have decided that in the end, it does seem that while there are
hand-holding types available, many seem to be a task to use short
lenses on. Their appeal to me from the get-go was that they were
claimed to be hand-holdable. Now I have decided that with so much
money that goes into the film and the fact that this will be my
"serious" setup, I want to look into other types such as the monorail
design, though still keeping the field/press type camera in mind since
they are quite cheap.

Let us say that there are three types of large-format cameras. Actually, you
could divide them up into more categories than that, but three may suffice.

1.) Monorail cameras. These are usually made of metal.
2.) Flat-Bed cameras. These are often made of wood, but metal also.
3.) Hand-Holdable.

My first (and only) monorail camera is a Calumet CC-400 camera that is
described a lot in Ansel Adams' book, "Camera and Lens." Mostly aluminum. I
got mine new for about $150 in about 1974. I tried carrying it along the
Appalachian trail and I just barely managed it. But that convinced me to go with

Deardorff 4x5 Special, which is a triple-extension Flat-Bed camera. It was
great in every respect, but was difficult to use with any lens shorter than
135mm. I did use a small 120mm lens on it, but that was a problem.

I traded that in on a Wisner Technical Field 4x5 that has both regular and
bag bellows, so I have no trouble with a 90mm lens on it, though I use the
Wisner Convertible Plasmat Set that goes up to 450mm if I need it. I wish I
had the corrector lens for it that I ordered over 10 years ago, but I guess
I will never get one.


I would never attempt to hand hold any of these cameras. The idea, for me,
is sharper images, and I cannot get that by hand holding. I come close with
a 35 mm camera, but a tripod is really essential for me no matter what. (I
seldom use one with 35 mm, but it costs me sharpness.)

You could probably hand-hold a Gowland TLR, and the Graflex and Speed
Graphics and Crown Graphics were meant to be hand held. I have never seen a
Gowland (except in pictures). My sister had (may still have) a Graphic, and
probably hand-held it at times, but I never wanted one for myself.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 12:55:01 up 74 days, 15:28, 3 users, load average: 4.15, 4.12, 4.14

Progressiveabsolution wrote:
Hi Roger,

No offense to you, but I can see CLEAR differences between photos I'm
viewing on photo sites. Why don't you give it a try? Which shots are
film, which are digital...what format, what size sensor (crop/full
frame) in digital camera?

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=285775877&size=o
Looks like a film scan, quite dirty (or a very dirty
digital sensor). Oversharpened.

Same photographer for these next two:

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=334638289&size=o
Poor quality image contains vertical striping, due to either
poor film scan, lousy digital camera, and/or poor digital processing.
Darkest shadows are zero. Dusty.

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=327057326&size=o
Extremely dirty image, either very dirty film scan
or very dirty digital camera image. Either hot pixels
from a digital camera, or film with pinholes.
Very oversharpened. I guess lousy digital camera
image. (I'm not talking about composition).

Trickier one

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=114944859&size=o
A much cleaner image. No dust, not oversharpened.
Some noise apparent. Darkest shadows lost at zero
image brightness. But the image has an extremely odd
histogram with repeating humps, probably due to unusual
digital processing.

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=288796848&size=o
Another dusty image, either very dirty film scan
or very dirty digital camera image. No hot pixels.

How about this one...very difficult to tell...

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=302642961&size=o
Looks like a film scan with vertical striping (or lousy
digital camera). Some dust specs (white) so probably
B&W film. Poor scan or digital processing or exposure
which lost the shadows (zero in the file).

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=132011750&size=l
Another very dirty image. At least this one doesn't clip the
lows (or highs). Not oversharpened. Looks like
dust on film.

A last one...film or digital?

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=287323587&size=o
Oversharpened, some dust. Cross pattern of dust
says digital camera, or strange digital processing
of film scan. I vote digital camera.

What does this prove (whether I'm right or not)?
The small formats of the images show too little detail
to be certain of the format. Determining that is also
dependent on the jpeg compression used. The high
lossy compression of jpeg images affects noise and perception.
The other thing these images show is poor technical
processing. These are some of the dirtiest images I've
seen, whether digital or film. Clipping of shadows is
poor. Probably excessive use of levels. To be fair, some
of the clipping could be due to jpeg compression.


I agree with you that "most" everything has to do with the
photographer. A person working with the best stuff and is good, but
not superb will not be as good as a person working with so-so stuff but
is superb at what he/she does.

I agree.

Canon 5D looks lifeless to me....but in actual life, seeing the prints,
maybe I would be tricked seeing an image done with a 5D and one done
with a Bronica 645 and some Velvia 50...

This sums up the major point I'm trying to make:
"Canon 5D looks lifeless" illustrates lack of processing
knowledge and skill.
Just like print film is different than slide film, digital
is different than either. If you want "that film" look,
you need to add a toe to digital camera characteristic curves.
Digital has a shoulder like film, but due to its much higher
dynamic range (of digital), the low end has no toe, and low
contrast (gamma ~ 1). Digital processing to give a more natural
look that we are used to with film requires the curves tool
be used to add a toe. See Figure 8b at:
Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images
and Comparison to Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

Adding the toe adds contrast and color saturation to digital
camera images, making the image more like a color slide.

So most of what you see in online galleries is the digital
processing and the effects on color from that processing.
Digital has much higher signal-to-noise ratios than film,
so one can change the characteristic curve to give pretty
much any response you want, much like changing developers,
but with much greater flexibility.

Roger

Progressiveabsolution wrote:

Hi Nicholas and to others that have been posting...

I have decided that in the end, it does seem that while there are
hand-holding types available, many seem to be a task to use short
lenses on. Their appeal to me from the get-go was that they were
claimed to be hand-holdable. Now I have decided that with so much
money that goes into the film and the fact that this will be my
"serious" setup, I want to look into other types such as the monorail
design, though still keeping the field/press type camera in mind since
they are quite cheap.

Some more questions that maybe need a new thread:

1) How is a Horseman to a Toyo to a Sinar to a, etc. type camera? In
other words, are there any real benefits of having one over the other?
I have been told, for example, that a Toyo 45C or CX is not quite as
"smooth" as the Horseman, but will do no different in terms of
flexibility and image quality with use of similar lenses on each
camera.

2) I saw, noted, that Nikkor/Schneider/Fuji/Rodenstock/etc. are the
primary lenses. Of these lenses, which ones are most
contrasty/saturated/colorful? I know some mentioned that the film is
of greater importance or something to that extent...but I don't agree
with this. I do agree that film plays a great role on color, but that
the lens has a greater role. So which of these lenses would make the
best choices to acheive a nice color rendition, again, similar to a
Rollei 6008i w/Rollei glass and the same film type used?

3) Is there a way to use a viewfinding device on view based cameras to
see the image right side up or does one get used to the upside down way
of seeing things? I really could not get used to the left-right
movements of the Rollei setup I had when looking through the waistlevel
finder...I found it to be way too distracting and I could never
perceive what "exactly" my final image would be...But I can imagine a
world upside down, though distracting at first, would not be too bad
compared to the left-right motion based cameras. Any thoughts on how
difficult it is coming from the viewfinding type world to get used to
the new world of being upside down?

Any camera recommendations, now knowing that I will be leaning more
towards a view type camera since I'll use the setup specifically with a
tripod and use a digital cam for my quick snaps or convenience factor?

Thanks everyone again. As I say, I'm still looking at the smaller
cameras, but now beginning to give a long hard look at the larger ones
since as I redundantly state, I will be tripoding everything.

Regards!!!

If you want a small, very light 4x5 camera, 3 pounds, check
out the Toho FC45x, Kerry Thalmann review:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm

I have one and love it. It really transformed portability
with 4x5 for me. (I started with a speed graphic and went
through several different 4x5s, but once I got the Toho,
I've never looked at another 4x5.)

Kerry use to post regularly here, but I haven't seen
anything from him lately (since Sept., 2004). (I hope he is OK.)

Roger