Fujinon A vs. C

[DREW WILEY]

Bob - all that does at best is arrive at an average estimate of deflection, not any real solution. I prefer cameras and holders that provide a true film plane, micrometer measured, and not a loosey-goosey estimated one. And films themselves can significantly differ in their susceptibility to bowing, with thick polyester base being the stiffest, triacetate much poorer, and certain thin film like XRay or lith, which some shooters use for economical reasons, being unusually thin and sloppy in this respect. Then if there are suddenly humidity change issues, or the camera is pointed strongly downward, the problem is accentuated. It can ruin anything resembling acute focus, and be easily detectable in side by side comparisons. In fact, it was Sinar who began marketing precision platen and adhesive filmholders to begin with, with the stated reason being that film sag is the weakest link in the whole chain of focus accuracy. Film uneveness can also prevent rectilinear lines from being truly straight, like an ocean horizon or side to a building in an architectural shot. I've seen all of these symptoms in developed images. This is common knowledge. No sense arguing about the obvious or being stuck in the Stone Age, especially when there are realistic ways to fix it.

 

[Bob S]

Drew,
Those Sinar adhesive holders came out years after
Linhof and then Hoffman introduced Vacuum film holders for sheet film.
Linhof didn’t make them for very long but Hoffman did.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, I'm aware of that too. We've chatted about this issue before. I didn't find the Hoffman a suitable solution at all. It was a well-made holder, but due to the aluminum construction was the most susceptible holder of all to condensation bowing issues outdoors in cold or damp weather. I converted one of them into my own improved version of a vacuum holder, which worked far better, though not as good a vac system as I later designed myself. I'm quite happy with the adhesive option for 8x10 or hypothetically larger format. With 4x5, polyester films don't seem to bow enough to make it a serious issue unless precise long-exp astro work is involved, which has been largely ceded over to digi capture anyway (and obviously glass plates prior, due to dimensional stability and assured flatness). ... As far as lack of long-term marketing success of holder improvements, the answer is obvious ; $$$$. Sinar expected their usual obscene accessory markup. Back then an ordinary 8x10 holder was around fifty bucks, and it wasn't long till people figured out how to take one of those, an ordinary box knife, and about 50 cents worth of the correct mass-produced 3M tape, and in about twenty minutes have in their hands the same thing Sinar demanded several hundred dollars for. Linhof also had a well-deserved reputation for extracting the very last cc of blood from anyone's budget for some of their things. I was just sorting thru my box of Sinar odd's n ends yesterday. Half of them were made in my own shop for next to nothing, and worked better than the original Sinar equivalent accessories that would have cost hundreds of dollars apiece.

 

[Bob S]

Doug Busch back in 83 had his Film Lock holders that somehow wedged a sheet into a fixed, firm position.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've seen a bit of his camera stuff, none of the holders, Bob. He evidently wasn't a very good machinist compared to any number of DIY ULF projects these days. But material science has come a long ways too. There is more than one way to skin a cat; but I only have time to make what works for me personally.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Before accepting much of the "stuff" being promulgated in this thread, I suggest reading another one on the Large Format Forum:

https://www.largeformatphotography....rn-LF-lenses&p=1527494&viewfull=1#post1527494​

It would be instructive to also follow the link I included in post #17 of that thread. Reading what happened subsequently is tedious, but does help explain why those who make extraordinary claims about the performance of certain lens lines should be read skeptically.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Somebody has a perpetual grudge. I stand by whatever I've posted already. It hasn't been carelessly stated. But one might be wise to take random non- standardized lens tests or reviews that show up on the web with a grain of salt, particularly when they don't take into account any number of pertinent variables.

 

[dodphotography]

My primary issue is theory vs practice... I always think I'm going to hike 14 miles from my car with an 8x10 and realistically, I walk 200 yards. The C and A lenses are awesome but their prices these days are hard to swallow.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, if you aren't walking far, big clunker studio plasmats might be a temptation due to their current typical asking prices alone. I especially like the 360A not only due to its superior near-macro performance compared to general purpose plasmats, but its dramatically lighter weight, which makes it useful for smaller camera format applications too, where the front standard is not as rigid as on an 8x10. But I do tend to walk longer distances, often in steep terrain, so have that to consider too. But it's not like you can just purchase one of these at will in good condition, even if you can afford one; they're scarce.