My first LF camera. Excited! Can use some advice.

[Steven Lee]

@MattKing Not numbers, but a high power louple and a light table make it easy to see differences between lenses, even on 35mm negatives.

 

[MattKing]

Don't forget though that resolution figures/results are only meaningful when you measure or observe them at the magnification chosen for final presentation.
For example, if you print or display at 8"x10", check the results at that print or display size.

 

[Steven Lee]

Matt, well of course. This is mostly a matter of principle. The resolution concern isn't too practical. Even in medium format I have more resolution than I need. This changes sometimes when you have to crop. I have a knack for being "lucky" bumping into panorama opportunities with nothing but 6x6 in the bag.

Can't wait to try 6x12 back on this thing...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If your hands are clean and dry just don't worry about it. It won't hurt anything. I had the same misgivings but as long as your hands are both clean and dry and you don't so something like flatten your thumb onto the emulsion or anything it'll be fine. I've not shot as much LF as some folks by far but easily several hundred sheets and I've not once had an issue arise from handling the dry film with my hands.

I tried cotton and Nitril gloves. I find that I can't feel the edge of the film where it goes in the film-holder slots. So now I wash my hands in Dawn dishwashing detergent to get all of the oils off my hands and fingertips. Then dry them well. I haven't noticed any effect on the film after that at all using bare hands. Just don't stick your whole thumb on the emulsion like you were just arrested and are being fingerprinted by the cops. Try to keep them near the edges and touch them lightly.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, well of course. This is mostly a matter of principle.

The design goals for Large Format assume much less magnification at the end stage. So yes, it is a matter of principle - on film resolution goals are lower, but on print resolution goals are higher!

 

[TmRn]

There is no particular need to get a readymade dark cloth, most of mine have come from a fabric store. Buy a yard or two of some dark/black fabric. Another option that works quite well is a xxxl or so black t-shirt. Put it over your head and extend the body over the back of the camera. The t-shirt work especially well in windy conditions. Usually easy to find in a thrift shop.

I mostly use an 8x loupe, assuming I remembered to get it in the case before heading out.

Or the version that works for me: 2 t-shirts sewn together, white on the outside and black on the inside, sleeves sewn shut. The neck opening stretches over the ground glass. Works great on my Sinar.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Some have suggested lens options -- I'd also suggest you can get a 135 or 127 f/4.5 in shutter at quite reasonable cost. A 135/4.5 Tessar will do anything you're likely to want, and can often be had for under $100 -- sometimes less than that.

 

[ic-racer]

Wouldn't this affect the focus accuracy as opposed to resolution? In a 3-dimensional scene like above the misalignment of the screen simply moves the focus point around, but there must be a fragment showing what the lens is capable of.

In terms of lenses, I am thinking 90mm, 135mm, 180mm and 250mm. I have an "artist viewfinder" app on my phone which allows me to frame with different focal lengths for any format. For 35mm and MF my preference is similar: slightly wider than normal, slightly long normal, plus one honest wide and a portrait lens.

Landscape focused at infinity on GG + GG farther back than film plane = nothing at all sharp over entire negative.
In that case, even an experienced photographer can have trouble knowing the problem by looking at the blurry negative:
- non matching front & rear cells
- camera/tripod movement
- film buckle during exposure
- GG too far back

'Poor lens resolution' is not on the list. I have not come across any non- soft focus LF lens made after 1880 that did not yield beautiful sharp prints, when used properly.
For example my 1880 brass Anthony doublet landscape lens yields beautiful sharp 11x14 prints from 8x10 negatives.

 

[Steven Lee]

@ic-racer your comment on lens quality is consistent with large format photography forum threads I'm binging on. TBH I am not seeing much differentiation between the big four LF lens makers in terms of quality or features, but pretty significant disparity on pricing. For example why are Sironar-S lenses so much (3-5 times!) more expensive than comparable Nikkors or Fujinons? Are they collectable? I acquired one just for the reference, and -- based on my microscopic dataset of just 4 butchered sheets -- I am not seeing any difference in sharpness between the Sironar-S 135mm ($1,250) and the Nikkor SW 90mm ($350).

 

[GKC]

I'll suggest sticking with one lens and one film emulsion for awhile.
Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS) can be a bottomless rabbit hole.
Before branching out, take your time studying the whats and the whys of the vision you're seeking before reaching for the ol' plastic.

 

[GLS]

For example why are Sironar-S lenses so much (3-5 times!) more expensive than comparable Nikkors or Fujinons?

They are more modern with exceptional performance over a broad range of magnification. Also a larger usable image circle. Along with the Apo Symmar L equivalents from SK they represent the pinnacle of plasmat design. A certain "Future Classics" article also has a lot to do with it. But really any of the plasmats from the big four since the 80s are already incredibly good; people are just willing to pay for that fractional improvement, whether it manifests in real world results or not. Chances are, imperfections in technique will have far greater impact anyway.

Another series which have reached astronomical prices are the Super Symmar XLs. So much so that I've all but given up finding a 110 for sensible money.

 

[Chuck1]

great advice
stay away from ebay
spend more time with your camera
even if you pull the dark slide
you don't have to trip the shutter
(bring a 35mm camera too)

 

[Donald Qualls]

imperfections in technique will have far greater impact anyway.

This is a great truth.

Some of Ansel Adams's great images were made with a Tessar or (IIRC) even a Rapid Rectilinear (back when he was lugging glass plates). But I guarantee you can still be out of focus, with converging verticals, light leaks due to technique, scratched film and fingerprints, even with a $5000 lens.

 

[Steven Lee]

As I continue to educate myself on LF techniques and equipment, I am discovering that the choice/quality of film holders is perhaps even more impactful than the lens! Folks in the LFF archives (great place, need to open an account there) talked about fancy "vacuum" or "all-metal precision" holders, or buying 10 and then measuring tolerances and cherry-picking just 4-5 best ones of the batch. Not sure how much of it is tangible vs the usual folklore.

My holders are the refurbished ones from Catlabs. How do I know if mine are good? Is there a way to test them for accuracy? I think I saw a spec somewhere for the film plate offset which I can measure. I see that B&H still sells brand new holders by Toyo-View. Another option for brand-new ones are Chamonix but they aren't available at the moment. Are they good?

 

[GLS]

Haven't tried the Chamonix holders, but I can vouch for the Toyo ones (I own 10 of them). Very well made, robust and reliable. Always easy to find in stock too.

 

[GKC]

Load your used holders with photo paper and let the sit in strong light, flip them and let them sit some more.
Developing the paper (it's cheaper than film) should tell you which ones are leakers.

 

[Steven Lee]

@GKC that's been done. My holders don't leak. But what I've read is that some folders allow for more accurate infinity focusing than others.

 

[madNbad]

@GKC that's been done. My holders don't leak. But what I've read is that some folders allow for more accurate infinity focusing than others.

Has anyone pointed to a preferred holder for the most accurate infinity focus?

 

[Donald Qualls]

buying 10 and then measuring tolerances and cherry-picking just 4-5 best ones of the batch. Not sure how much of it is tangible vs the usual folklore.

I don't recall the formula, but it's possible to calculate the film plane depth of focus, knowing the true focal length, aperture, and desired level of sharpness. It's been my impression that for most large format applications, this well covers the variation in film plane locations from holder to holder and even between brands. What is critical is that the ground glass textured side (toward the lens) matches that film plane depth. If your ground glass was replaced and installed wrong side to, used to have a fresnel on the lens side (like some Graphic View focusing screens), or has a huge amount of wear on from inserting and removing film holders (mainly an issue with a wood focusing screen frame) it might need adjusting so that the focus in the negative matches what you saw on the ground glass.

 

[Steven Lee]

Has anyone pointed to a preferred holder for the most accurate infinity focus?

Sinar Precision series holders were mentioned. I use Google to find these old threads, search for something like

site:www.largeformatphotography.info film holder precision

 

[ic-racer]

Skip to page 37 for the chart.( mentioned by Donald q )

https://cmitja.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/dofindepth1.pdf

 

[MTGseattle]

@Steven Lee I hope large format is treating you well. As you've likely discovered there is a lot of information out there and many approaches to "the dance." Try not to get super bogged down into all the intricacies of lens design. Some concern as to coverage is important, but it will be slightly interdependent on your intended subject matter.
In my continued quest to keep myself out of any meaningful photographic progress, I just picked up an 8x10 camera today.

 

[Steven Lee]

@MTGseattle actually I found surprisingly little tech or mechanical friction when adopting large format. Perhaps my medium format shooting style was already very LF-ish: slow, methodical, on a tripod. My Mamiya 220F already trained me to cock the shutter manually at the last moment, so "the dance" wasn't too unfamiliar. Besides, I could never finish a 12-shot roll on a single hike, from that perspective LF with just 6 sheets is an upgrade, because I can always start processing film on the same day Even in terms of weight & bulk my LF kit is about the same as my Hasselblad kit. The only annoying part of the transition was adopting rotary processing and adding 2500-series JOBO tanks to my existing pile of supplies.

In terms of results, I am still going through some old MF shots and re-shooting them just to practice. One side effect of this is that I have not experienced any need for using camera movements yet. I mean I used them a few times, but haven't developed the feel for them, especially the shifts. So far in 100% of the time it's easier to just move the camera.

Really enjoying reading the LF forum too. Good crowd.

Congrats on your 8x10! Hopefully the real estate will continue to crash and maybe I'll be able to upgrade to a bigger house and finally build a darkroom. Why did you move up?

 

[Roger Cole]

I have rarely used shift, but I use tilt on virtually every shot, and some rise on many.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Roger Cole when do you use rise as opposed to mounting the camera lower/higher? I wonder if raise and shift are only popular because they're easier than raising/moving the tripod? Maybe I am not feeling the need because I do my precise framing even before I pull the camera out of the backpack? I have a smartphone app for finding the view and position of the camera, so when it's mounted I already have the framing I wanted.