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

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) spake thus:

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).

Where do you see that? Perhaps your monitor needs adjustement (or
replacement): I see nothing that even remotely resembles "vertical
striping" in this picture. Nor any dust specks.

It does look a little contrasty, but other than that, perfectly OK.


--
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)

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) spake thus:

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).

Where do you see that? Perhaps your monitor needs adjustement (or
replacement): I see nothing that even remotely resembles "vertical
striping" in this picture. Nor any dust specks.

Looking at it on a monitor set to 32k colors, it looks perfectly fine,
if you were to reduce the number of colors to 16 or 256, you would see
the shadows fade into black, the highlights (on the face) blotch,
and the lines of shadow in the background become streaks.

It may also be that he has an LCD, a low resolution screen, or a web broswer
with a bad JPEG decompressor. Try the GIMP.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) spake thus:

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).

Where do you see that? Perhaps your monitor needs adjustement (or
replacement): I see nothing that even remotely resembles "vertical
striping" in this picture. Nor any dust specks.

It does look a little contrasty, but other than that, perfectly OK.

I use calibrated monitors and a color managed digital workflow.
It is not my monitor. If you can't see these effects on your
monitor, put the image into photoshop and use the curves tool.
First pull the curve down in the middle so you see details
in the highlights, then pull the curve up to see details
in the shadows. You should be able to see two bright spots to the
left of the head without any adjustments to the image.
The vertical striping appears in the shaded region between the
ear and the eye, and in the background. Brighten the
image with the curves tool and it should be easier to
see. The striping is more subtle than on the other
image where I noted striping. In photoshop, bring up
the levels tool. With the levels
tool, place the mouse cursor on the slider for the low
end, hold down the alt key, then push the left mouse button,
and photoshop will show the pixels below/at the slider, which
are the pixels = 0. It has too many zero pixels in my opinion
losing a lot of shadow detail.

Roger

Hi Roger,

I am going to look into this one. Thank you very much for the
recommendation.

Best,
Mike



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

Hi Jean-David,

Thank you for the brief and quick rundown. I appreciate it. I am
curious about the smaller cameras such as the one that you have. Is it
possible to get a 65mm or close to this size of a lens onto one? Also,
do these type of cameras have a see-through the world right side up or
down? I do not mind the upside down of the view type cameras, but if I
was going that way/route, I would have to buy something that flips the
image right side up like the Cambo binocular does for Cambo view type
cameras.

I'm going to look into that Wista more though in the meantime, if you
can let me know how short a length of lens can be placed onto one that
would be great.

Mike

Jean-David Beyer wrote:
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

Well,

You were mostly wrong with these, though you were right with some in
spite an ambiguity of a response (i.e. could be film or could be
digital, etc.). Just so you know, only two of the images were digital.
They were done with a 5D. The rest were 4X5 w/exception of one Mamiya
7. I did not see much of what you saw regarding
"dust/noise/oversharpened/etc." but I do not have the monitor to see
these things so carefully as perhaps the one you are viewing.

This aside, I am quite curious about what you said regarding making a
film image from a digital camera...that is, making an image with a
digital camera that looks no different than one from film. Since I can
see clear differences (sometimes I'm tricked) between "the look" of
film and digital, per the posted images I have seen on the web from
some likely 5000-10000 images (call me crazy), why am I never seeing
any digital images looking like film images? In other words, is it that
even pros don't know how to modify their stuff so it looks like film OR
is it that with these photo sites, it compresses the image down and
makes an image from a digital camera look "clearly" digital vs. the
compressed film image that still looks like a film image?

I cannot figure it out, personally...but it seems that I need you to
come over to my place with your digital shots and film shots so I can
see if I can tell which was done with film and vice versa. This is the
only way to figure it all out in the end, in spite I do get people on
boards that will all say that regardless of any feature they use to
shape their digital photos into film looking photos, they still do not
look like their film based images...

I'm off topic here and would like to just say thanks to you and to
everyone else that has posted in this thread. I know there is much to
froogle and learn, but you all have put much better pictures into my
head of what I'm seeking.

As an interesting or not very interesting side note...I still cannot
believe that 35mm film cameras (not all), are selling for MORE than the
digital equivalent. I.E. Look at Contax G/Leica M/and even Contax
SLR/Leica R/etc. and you will see how spendy they are in spite you can
buy the same setup with a Canon 5D and Zeiss lenses for not much
difference in price!







Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
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 Jean-David,

Thank you for the brief and quick rundown. I appreciate it. I am
curious about the smaller cameras such as the one that you have. Is it
possible to get a 65mm or close to this size of a lens onto one?

Definitely not on the Deardorff. Not on the Calumet either, unless you get
either a recessed lens board (if then) or a different (wide angle) model
with bellows that can be used as bag bellows. But there is more than getting
the lens onto one. If you need the movements, the bellows must not be so
compressed that you cannot use them.

Also,
do these type of cameras have a see-through the world right side up or
down?

The ones I have all see the world upside down. This is never a problem for
me. While I should not be dogmatic about it, if an image is no good upside
down, it is probably no good right side up either. At least, most of the time.

I do not mind the upside down of the view type cameras, but if I
was going that way/route, I would have to buy something that flips the
image right side up like the Cambo binocular does for Cambo view type
cameras.

I never had anything like that. I think it would be a pain to use, and just
another thing to carry around. I am trying to reduce what I carry around
(hence the Wisner Convertible Plasmat Set instead of a bunch of lenses). I
use only a yellow and a green filter, and sometimes a polarizer. I own lots
lots more, but I do not take them into the field anymore.

I'm going to look into that Wista more though in the meantime, if you
can let me know how short a length of lens can be placed onto one that
would be great.

While I am pretty sure you can use a wider lens on the Wisner than 90mm,
that is as wide as I would go. Adjustments, even with the bag bellows, gets
to be difficult. Also, I do not want to pay for, or carry one.

--
.~. 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 75 days, 15:53, 3 users, load average: 4.29, 4.24, 4.18

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

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.)

You might also want to consider also the Wisner Expedition series of cameras:

http://www.wisner.com/Page10.html

They cost more than many other cameras, but are very strong.

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

He may be frustrated with all the flames and junk postings.


--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 13:25:01 up 75 days, 15:58, 3 users, load average: 4.18, 4.20, 4.18

"Progressiveabsolution"
This aside, I am quite curious about what you said regarding making a
film image from a digital camera...that is, making an image with a
digital camera that looks no different than one from film. Since I can
see clear differences (sometimes I'm tricked) between "the look" of
film and digital, per the posted images I have seen on the web from
some likely 5000-10000 images (call me crazy), why am I never seeing
any digital images looking like film images? In other words, is it that
even pros don't know how to modify their stuff so it looks like film OR
is it that with these photo sites, it compresses the image down and
makes an image from a digital camera look "clearly" digital vs. the
compressed film image that still looks like a film image?

Most pros don't know how to do it and that's understandable because digital
"processing" is the job of a good lab. The same as with film, career people
who make their living turning raw images into exhibition prints work in the
custom lab field. You won't find them at Costco or Wal-Mart running Fuji
Frontier machines, but the digital lie is that it's all done in the camera
and the photographer can simply have it printed the way it comes off the
chip. To be honest, many pros have gone through the learning curves to
produce the work they want to get, but most either haven't got the skills or
the time to keep up with the technology. Good digital can certainly be made
to look like the equal of film and even better, and bad digital gives itself
away as does bad film.

I've no axe to grind either way as we process both.

John Castronovo
Tech Photo & Imaging

Hi John,

Thank you for your comments. Would you tell me what you consider to be
"good digital"? In other words, what kind of digital cameras would
produce something that can be turned into a film looking image? I
don't want something with grain...I want clarity all the way (which is
why I am going to shoot 4X5), but I want that sense of something I have
achieved with film that I have not seen with digital. I really love a
provia type shot, for example, with a Contax G system. If I can get
that type of "look" on the print from a DSLR, of course I would love to
shoot with that DSLR system you would recommend. My preference is to
use glass from Zeiss/Rollei/Leica/etc. on a DSLR.

Thanks for any pointers on a camera that would be capable of producing
a film like quality once I have mastered post-processing to get it to
this look...

Best,
Mike


babelfish wrote:
"Progressiveabsolution"
This aside, I am quite curious about what you said regarding making a
film image from a digital camera...that is, making an image with a
digital camera that looks no different than one from film. Since I can
see clear differences (sometimes I'm tricked) between "the look" of
film and digital, per the posted images I have seen on the web from
some likely 5000-10000 images (call me crazy), why am I never seeing
any digital images looking like film images? In other words, is it that
even pros don't know how to modify their stuff so it looks like film OR
is it that with these photo sites, it compresses the image down and
makes an image from a digital camera look "clearly" digital vs. the
compressed film image that still looks like a film image?

Most pros don't know how to do it and that's understandable because digital
"processing" is the job of a good lab. The same as with film, career people
who make their living turning raw images into exhibition prints work in the
custom lab field. You won't find them at Costco or Wal-Mart running Fuji
Frontier machines, but the digital lie is that it's all done in the camera
and the photographer can simply have it printed the way it comes off the
chip. To be honest, many pros have gone through the learning curves to
produce the work they want to get, but most either haven't got the skills or
the time to keep up with the technology. Good digital can certainly be made
to look like the equal of film and even better, and bad digital gives itself
away as does bad film.

I've no axe to grind either way as we process both.

John Castronovo
Tech Photo & Imaging