Intermediate large format questions/photography misadventures

[MTGseattle]

I feel like the Yeti stuff is a beacon the trail-head thieves. I don't want to descend down the dark road of what/how to keep things safe in a vehicle though. If someone's willing to break a window and rifle through a car, all bets are off.


Film Holders: So far, I've found that the Toyo 8x10 holders have the nicest overall feel from loading/unloading to making an image. That being said, I still have to manhandle the crap out of my film from time to time in both loading and unloading irrespective of the Film holder brand. Is this just due to the infrequency? I'm not sure what the variable would be in loading say 20 sheets of 4x5 and really struggling with number 10.
If the dark slides can be pulled and inserted smoothly, I would reason that there isn't a problem with the slot at all, but maybe it's not that simple?

 

[eli griggs]

I feel like the Yeti stuff is a beacon the trail-head thieves. I don't want to descend down the dark road of what/how to keep things safe in a vehicle though. If someone's willing to break a window and rifle through a car, all bets are off.


Film Holders: So far, I've found that the Toyo 8x10 holders have the nicest overall feel from loading/unloading to making an image. That being said, I still have to manhandle the crap out of my film from time to time in both loading and unloading irrespective of the Film holder brand. Is this just due to the infrequency? I'm not sure what the variable would be in loading say 20 sheets of 4x5 and really struggling with number 10.
If the dark slides can be pulled and inserted smoothly, I would reason that there isn't a problem with the slot at all, but maybe it's not that simple?

Gaffer's or Duck tapes cover labels beautifully, as do faux packing list and poster cutouts.

 

[MTGseattle]

@MattKing I asked my film holder question in my other thread. Feel free to edit my post/s in this thread.

 

[MattKing]

@MattKing I asked my film holder question in my other thread. Feel free to edit my post/s in this thread.

Done.

 

[MTGseattle]

Wow. I posted my "please edit" into the wrong thread too. I promise I'm not logging in here while I'm hitting the sauce.

 

[MattKing]

Wow. I posted my "please edit" into the wrong thread too. I promise I'm not logging in here while I'm hitting the sauce.

Did you have one of those "Intermediate large" libations, by any chance?

 

[MTGseattle]

Ha ha.

 

[MTGseattle]

I've got some Stouffer products enroute. Those coupled with a densitometer mean that I am fully equipped to head down the tedious task of film testing once again. If only I could get my hands on some Rodinal.
Task #1 will be nailing down what my current "normal" is for Delta 100.

 

[MTGseattle]

I searched for "Velvia RVP50" and the results are pretty thin.

I know that even when fresh this film had pretty bad reciprocity characteristics. (in terms of color shift) With age, these are likely to be even worse. I have some in 8x10 and I question whether I should even attempt to anticipate how it will behave or if I should simply expose 2 sheets and see what I get. Depending upon those results, the rest could be fun and interesting or a complete waste of time (garbage).
Has anyone used any old (supposedly frozen) RVP50 sheet film recently?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I searched for "Velvia RVP50" and the results are pretty thin.

I know that even when fresh this film had pretty bad reciprocity characteristics. (in terms of color shift) With age, these are likely to be even worse. I have some in 8x10 and I question whether I should even attempt to anticipate how it will behave or if I should simply expose 2 sheets and see what I get. Depending upon those results, the rest could be fun and interesting or a complete waste of time (garbage).
Has anyone used any old (supposedly frozen) RVP50 sheet film recently?

I'm sure you know Velvia 50 RVP in large format is no longer made. I have two boxes of 4x5 frozen in my freezer right now.

 

[MTGseattle]

Alan, I'm aware. The film I have on hand is pretty old. I'll give it a shot one of these days.

I'm questioning my focal length choices on 8x10.

I have the little Wollensak 159mm series III F12.5 extreme wide angle as my wide lens. It is coated and has the yellow dot which I guess means a "cold weather glue" for the cells.? It covers, but I don't think there is a ton of room for movements. I'm not sure if my dissatisfaction with the sheets made with the 159 are too wide, or if I simply didn't compose well enough. In one image I really should have used my "tennis shoes" zoom technique as there is a ton of worthless foreground. The only other issue with the Wolly is a lack of filter threads.

I jump from 159mm up to the Fujinon C 300. I really like this lens, and I have a technika top hat board for it which lets me use it easily on 4x5 too. I think the top hat I have is 30mm. Then, I jump to the Fujinon 450mm. I like this lens too but find myself wishing for another 100mm or so in a few situations.

Let's ignore budget for a moment and just muse regarding available options.

The Super Angulon 165mm ?

Is there a 210mm I should consider, or is 210 too close to the 240-250 of which there are 2 that I would seriously consider?

There are a few 355-360mm offerings but again, too close together?

After 450. What aspect of lens design has led to nothing in 500 or 550mm for large format? Do I go low-tech and add a +1 close-up filter and see how that goes? If that was a well-regarded thing to do among large format photographers, I feel like it would be mentioned all over the place.

Alas, Glazers has zero large format gear in the rental fleet these days. My only paths to really figuring this out are to really start networking locally and see about borrowing/swapping lenses or to buy them and sell them on if I don't like them. Option 2 could get expensive really fast.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

The aperture mechanism in my old-style Pentax 67 300mm f/4 was misbehaving, so I disassembled the lens. It turns out that the front elements are a single unit that can serve as a barrel lens for 4x5". Seen here near infinity focus.



The focal length in this configuration is a tad longer than the standard 135mm and seems to be at least a stop faster. Could it be the poor man's Aeroektar?

 

[Vaughn]

...

Let's ignore budget for a moment and just muse regarding available options.

...

After 450. What aspect of lens design has led to nothing in 500 or 550mm for large format? Do I go low-tech and add a +1 close-up filter and see how that goes? If that was a well-regarded thing to do among large format photographers, I feel like it would be mentioned all over the place.
...

A Red Dot Artar, 24"/11 (610mm) might be an answer. In a shutter if the budget can handle that. Not fast, a little dark but still usable in the forest. Sharp as a tack, from near focus to infinity focus.
Awhile back I used a Turner-Reich convertible (12"-21"-28") -- using one element gave me a 28" lens (710mm). The bellows of my 8x10 Zone VI could not handle that so I used the Kodak 2D. Okay, but the RD Artar 610mm is sharper and easier to use.

I have the little Wollensak 159mm series III F12.5 extreme wide angle as my wide lens.

So do I, but it sees little use. I found it to be too soft and dark in the corners on 8x10...but I might have been too hard on it and could use it better. Platinum print using it below.
I'll put the 159/12.5 in a lensboard for the 5x7 'one of these days'.

 

[GLS]

Is there a 210mm I should consider, or is 210 too close to the 240-250 of which there are 2 that I would seriously consider?

I have the Schneider Apo-Symmar L 5.6/210 (a Linhof select copy in fact). It's an exceptional lens. The Rodenstock Apo Sironar S equivalent would be another option.

I feel there is enough of a difference in focal length to justify getting both, and in fact I did; I later bought the Fujinon A 9/240 which is also excellent and a nice middle ground to have between the 210 and 300. I haven't tried the G-Claron.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

The front group of the SMC Pentax 300 is at best a soft focus lens at close distance on 4x5. It seems to be about a stop faster than my Speed Graphic's stock Optar 135mm F/4.7. The performance at infinity is probably a bit better but I've yet to try that. No Aeroektar, but it does make a picture.

SMC 300 front group, Fuji HR-U


Optar 135mm @ f32, Fuji HR-U

 

[MTGseattle]

Bronson; I appreciate the slightly odd information. I'm mainly questioning things that have enough image circle for 8x10 right now. I agree that a "poor man's" Aero Ektar would be a coveted item if you find something that fits the bill. A True Aero Ektar is an interesting and expensive lens.

@Vaughn I wonder what the sample variation is in the Wollensak 159mm I've only got 3-4 frames exposed with mine, but I don't see anything too odd in the corners. I did have some pretty serious front and back tilt in one frame, and I lost the bottom inch either to loss of image circle or some other mechanical vignetting.

 

[Vaughn]

...

@Vaughn I wonder what the sample variation is in the Wollensak 159mm I've only got 3-4 frames exposed with mine, but I don't see anything too odd in the corners. I did have some pretty serious front and back tilt in one frame, and I lost the bottom inch either to loss of image circle or some other mechanical vignetting.

It could be operator error or me just being too use to the plasmats. Or someone might have taken the lens apart in the past decades and did not put it back together correctly. I rarely need to go that short, but it might be nice to try it with 4x10.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

After seven pages I figured it was time to take a look at more esoteric options. It's not like the large format lens industry is bustling with new innovations.

The SMC franken-lens just covers 5x7 at infinity with increasing coverage at closer distances / longer bellows draw. Are you able to use barrel lenses or do you need a shutter?

 

[MTGseattle]

I could use barrel lenses, I just can't decide how much goofing around I want to do. I think I have 34" draw to play with in 8x10.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Upon some further reading it seems that SMC 300mm above is optically similar to the 400mm of the same era (i.e telescoping, not the later internal focusing design). Presuming the lens construction is also similar, the front group of the 400mm would likely provide somewhat greater coverage than the 300mm. A deconstructed 400mm f/4 would probably yield something like a 200mm f/2.8 with poor 8x10 coverage at infinity.

My other barrel lenses are both Wollensaks: 15" f/5.6 telephoto (12" back focus) and a 21" (439.8mm) f/10 APO. Both are workable on 8x10 but there's no hope for the APO in 4x5 when it was meant to cover 11x14

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Here's another not-so-lovely sample from the front group of the P67 SMC 300, this time straining to cover 8x10 with the bellows extension at 1:1 magnification or thereabouts. The effect of 2.5mm of front shift is clearly visible in the unevenness of the corner falloff. Random fact: it is able to cover about the same percentage of the 8x10 area at 1:1 as a 50mm is able to cover 4x5 area at 1:1. I guess that puts the effective focal length around 200mm. Much more suited to 4x5 (and maybe 5x7 at closer distances) in terms of covering power.

Fuji HR-U 100 metered @ 25 (for bellows), f/3.2?; ~1s
Rodinal 1+100 11', V800 negative scan, resized


The chromatic aberration is severe, so the roll of Ektar 100 I just fired off press-style in a 6x8 roll back is basically guaranteed to be hot garbage. I imagine trying to use tilt is equally horrific. Not for everyone's use case but good enough for goofing around

Spoiler: Over-the-shoulder digital snapshot

Edit: and two paper exposures onto 8x10 Ilford IV RC, V800 scans. The reaches of the image circle are much less apparent in these exposures.

1st) ISO 12, dektol 1+4;
2nd) overexposed and reversal processed; mottling from too aggressive a bleach.

 

[MTGseattle]

I applaud your experimentation. I can't seem to loosen up enough to try anything interesting lately. The only "dead" lens I have laying around right now is a little Graflex optar 127mm.

 

[MTGseattle]

I do have a bunch of film holders loaded and ready though. I've got 2 types of paper loaded and some film.

 

[MTGseattle]

Lets segue into filter territory for a bit. I'm curious about "vintage" filters and general quality for b&w work. My Wollensak 159mm has no threads.
I've sourced the appropriate size Kodak slip-on series adapter. Do I next adapt that to a common size, or should I source some "series" drop in filters?
I see a seller on ebay has a bunch of what are billed as nos ednalite coated filters in the appropriate size.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Series filters haven't been produced for quite a while.
If you can get step-up adapters that go from Series to Metric, it will make obtaining quality filters much easier.
Check with Tim at www.filterfind.net , he's a good resource for filters, adapters and such.