New & thinking about LF

[Matt York]

FYI...... I've done an APUG search and read dozens and dozens of threads. Just getting more input, feedback.

I am a 35mm shooter and recently have gone out with a friend who shoots LF. This has me hunkering for a LF setup. This may be a passing fancy. But I've been doing some reading and just ordered a couple books on LF and may take the plunge in a small way next summer.

So, I'm doing some homework. I've been through my share of [35mm] brand war threads. What I'm interested in is some opinions from those who have shot some LF.

My questions:
1)Knowing there are some great bargains to be had for used cameras, and had $1000 to spend for a 4x5 view camera, which would you choose, and why?

2)If you could have only 3 lenses, which focal lengths (& manufacturers) would you choose?

3)What 2 lenses would be 4 & 5?

FYI, I'm most interested in some landscape, old barns, feed mills, industrial buildings etc. (and maybe some portraits) That kind of stuff.

Thanks for the input.

 

[blaze-on]

I'm sure there are many here who will offer excellent advice, but also check out http://largeformatphotography.info/
if you haven't already, as you will find all the answers and the numerous differences of opinion as to what's 'best" as well.

I read everything on that site prior to my foray into LF.
Best of luck,

Matt

 

[Jim Moore]

2)If you could have only 3 lenses, which focal lengths (& manufacturers) would you choose?

Schneider G-Claron 150mm
Schneider G-Claron 210mm
Schneider G-Claron 355mm


Jim

 

[Dan's45]

hey matt,
my best advice to you is to get out there and go exploring your local REAL camera shops...not ritz(or what have you). they are more inclined to have some sort of lf camera on hand for you to play with. they should also have a decent amount of lenses on hand. as far as actually going out to buy, i'd make a list of what i liked and did not like while looking at certain cameras. i'm sure you'll get this going rather quickly if you take the time to study each one(is it compatible, does it have light leaks, are there any distinguishing marrs or dents,and the cost...can you afford it). look for holders next...regal and fidelity are good ones to consider, then you have the readyloaders or quickloads. these are not cheap compared to the before mentioned, but are more convienent i am told to shoot with because they hold more film. i won 3 lenses and the are ok...they the job when i go and shoot. my personal favorite right now is my nikkor 135mm w. it has really nice sharpeness to it. i also have 2 schneiders-a 90 f/8 super and a 210 symmer-s.while i have hardly touched the other two, doesn't i have no use for them, just haven't played too much with them. anyway am rambling...hope you find what you are looking for. if have any other queries...try the chat room...more likely to get a faster response to your questions than here. there are a bunch of great folks who visit there who have a pretty vast knowledge of the subject. hope that this helps! cheerio! and happy shooting!!!

 

[Mongo]

Welcome to APUG Matt.

In regards to your first question (about cameras brand), the great thing about LF is that it doesn't matter nearly as much as it does with 35mm and medium format. With LF the lenses are not camera-specific, so you don't get nearly as many "holy wars" about camera brands. Having said this, I will offer you a few thoughts but I also need to ask this question: Does the $1000 cover only the camera, or do you need it to cover the camera, lenses, light meter, film holders, dark cloth, etc.? The answer to that might change some of the recommendations below.

As to specific cameras: Two that are excellent choices (all of this is just my opinion so take it for what it's worth) are the Tachihara and Shen-Hao 4x5 field cameras. The price is almost equal for both (around $600 new), but they embody two different philosophies in camera design. The Shen-Hao has every movement you could want, it has replaceable bellows, and it has an international back so you can use it with all of the things that require such a back (many roll film holders, for example). The Tachihara has all of the movements you'll need for landscape and portrait work, leaves out some movements that are useful for table-top photography, has a simple spring back, and is significantly lighter than the Shen-Hao.

Both are fine cameras, and the limitations aren't as hard-and-fast as they first seem (for example, you can get a roll film holder that will slip under a spring back but it will cost you more than an international back roll film holder, and when you consider the weight of your full pack the difference in the weight of the cameras doesn't seem nearly as big)...the real isues are whether or not you'll use the camera for more than just the landscape and portrait photography you've mentioned, and whether the flexibility in the camera will be important to you. If you want one camera that will allow the ultimate in flexibility and are willing to carry an extra three pounds, then the Shen-Hao is hard to beat. If weight matters and you don't care about anything other than landscape and portrait work, then the Tachihara will do everything you need.

Personally I chose the Shen-Hao because I wanted the international back and the ability to use bag bellows with very short lenses, and I've been very happy with my decision. I've put the camera through a lot over the last 2+ years, and it stil feels and operates like new. I have no doubt that the Tachihara would hold up just as well...but the Shen-Hao met my needs better.

I would strongly recommend a field camera rather than a monorail due to the ease of carrying the camera into the field and setting it up. You can use a monorail in the field, but it's not nearly as convenient as using a camera designed for ease of transportation and setup.

On to your questions about lenses: The first thing I'd recommend is that you consider what you vision is like in 35mm and then multiply your three favority focal lengths by 3 to find out approximately what lenses will give you the same vision in 4x5. Are you more of a wide-angle shooter or a telephoto shooter? You can get a good idea of what focal lengths you would be most comforable with by thinking about your photographic vision this way.

Having said this, my favorite combination of lenses are a 90mm, a 150mm, and a 250mm. Basically wide, normal, and long. Many people would recommend a 210mm rather than the 250mm lens for the long end of a set like this...and they're probably right for them. But for portraiture I appreciate the longer reach of a 250mm lens. In addition to those, my next two would be a 210mm and a 300mm.

As to specific lenses...it's hard to go wrong with any recently made LF lens. If you're shooting color you'll probably want newer lenses for the excellent multicoatings that are available. If, on the other hand, you're doing B&W work, then older lenses can give your wonderful results and some have a vey special character to their images that makes them attractive. Soft focus lenses for portraiture, for example.

There's lots of good information on the web abiut lenses, but in my pack I'm happy with the Schneider Super Angulon 90mm f/8, a Nikkor 150mm, and a 250mm Fujinon. These lenses ended up in my collection for various reasons, but each is a good lens. For the 90mm I didn't need the extreme movements that the f/4.5 and f/5.6 lenses allow, and the f/8 lens is easier to carry. For the 150mm and 250mm lenses, any lens that's been made in the last 20 years will be more than good enough. In fact, any lens that's been made in the last 50 years will probably be fine. I have my lenses because the right deals came along at the right times, not due to anything that makes these lenses whole bunches better than other lenses.

One thing to keep in mind is the size of your lenses. (Kerry Thalmann has a wonderful article on his web site about lightweight lenses.) For me, I'd not planned to stray too far from the car, so I didn't worry about the size of the lenses. Only you now if heavier glass will be a problem for you. If it is, then keep the size of the lenses in mind when you're building your kit. If not, then heavier lenses tend to be less expensive than lighter lenses.

You have so many options in LF that it's hard not to freeze up and never actually make a decision. I highly recomend that you figure out what focal lengths you want and then move forward from there to figure out what lenses you want. The 90/150/250 combination makes sense for me, but it's not for everyone.

Best of luck as you build your kit. There are plenty of good deals for LF lenses out there once you've figured out what you want to do...and any modern lens will be very nice.

Be well.
Dave

 

[raucousimages]

My vote is for a toyo monorail camera (45 c,d,e or f). Easy to find, great prices, interchangeable accessories and can be broken down and taken to the field. It will get you started and you can change cameras after you develope YOUR preferences. I have 9 LF cameras 7 are toyo and they stand up to the use even my children give them and parts are easy to come by. Remember all the camera does is hold the film and lens and you can remount the lenses if you change cameras.

Most of my lenses are Rodenstock but all new models of Rodenstock, Caltar(Rodenstock),Schneider, Nikkor and Fujinon are excellent.

For 4X5

#1-150mm
#2-90mm
#3-210mm
#4-65mm
#5-300mm
#6-120mm makro
#7-490mm
#8-250 soft focus

Start with a 150mm and learn to use it first then purchase other lenses or you will overwhelm your self in lenses. A set three lens between 75mm to 250 will do most things.

 

[Ole]

#1: Anything. If it were me, I'd consider 5x7" too - a great size for contact prints without being as big, heavy and expensive as 8x10".

#2: For 4x5": 90mm, 150mm, 210mm. Just about any make, mine happen to be mostly Schneider.
For 5x7" I'd choose the same three focal lengths, or swap the 150 with a 165 Angulon and the 210mm with a 240 Symmar.

#3: 360mm, 120mm. Same here - same FL for 4x5" and 5x7".

Looking at this it looks as if I use the extra size of 5x7" to get a wider look, and that is essentially correct! With 4x5" I rarely run out of coverage, but I often run out of film area. 5x7" (and 13x18cm) is my favorite size. The 90mm f:8 Super Angulon is perhaps my most used lens.

 

[Marv]

The LF camera is a box that is light tight. Speed Graphics/Crowns will be the least expensive and typically come with an acceptible 135/150mm lens. They are a good jumping off point BUT can lead to frustration because of a lack of movements. If you don't need perspective controls right off I would recommend one of them and a couple hundred sheets of film to get a feel for the format and what most consider a normal lens (135/150).

If you want controls a flat bed in wood or metal is a better choice (but you won't know if you need controls until you start to photograph) and cost more. Brand? I don't think starting out it will really matter. Any recent model will serve you well. I say recent because most have accessories available (bag bellows, lens boards replacement parts etc.), factory (or a helpful APUGer around) support and light tight bellows (bellows being light tight is very important, I just cna't stress that enough).

After you shoot with it a while you may find another model or brand than the one you have that really has the features you want. Trading up, or sideways, at that time makes sense both creatively and financially. I have used a Zone VI 4X5 since '91 and really like some of the Wisner and Canham features but am happy enough with what I have I don't se the need to change. The features won't improve my imagery and that is the bottom line, the images I produce.

As stated before knowing your favorite 35mm focal lengths makes a lens decision a much easier process. These are what I primarily use, with the % of time I use it and the 35mm equivalent (approximate).

121mm Super Angulon, Schneider (30%) (30mm)
180mm Sironar N, Rodenstock (25%) (45mm)
90mm Super Angulon, Schneider (30%) (30mm)
210mm APO Symmar, Schneider (15%) (55mm)

I also have a 150, 135 and 240. They see limited use and I could easily live with out them. Coating is not critical for B+W, more so for color, but to start out I think any later vintage (1960's and up) lens should suit your purposes. Remember, there is a market for what ever you have and if you bought it right you can probably sell it at no loss down the road.

I do look at shutters, though. Copals and Compurs of later vintage are much more user friendly although virtually any shutter can be maintained and repaired quite economically.

$1000 isn't a lot in LF terms but I think you can get your foot in the door. Just be aware of the force of the dark slide, you may be seduced and never be turned back!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

You've got $1000 and your subjects are landscape and architecture, and it doesn't sound like you're backpacking or mountaineering.

I'd go for a Sinar F or F1. These are fully capable cameras that you can grow with that can be had for under $300 these days, just because monorails seem unpopular, and they aren't that much more than the old battleship types like the B&J or Graphic View or Calumet C-1.

Lenses in that budget range--I'd look at a Schneider 90mm/8.0 Super-Angulon and a 150/5.6 Symmar and a 210/5.6 Symmar. If you get the older convertible Symmars they'll give you an extra focal length, but they aren't as sharp when converted, so you might consider them as portrait lenses when used in converted mode, or stop down and in B&W use a strong monochromatic filter for best results.

Lenses 4 & 5--once you're shooting for yourself, you'll know the answer to that. You might want to upgrade the lenses you have, get a 75 and a 65 or 55, go longer. It will depend on what you shoot and your vision.

 

[seadrive]

Along the same line as what Ole said...

Think about the size of the prints you'll be happy with, before you choose a format size. If you buy a 4x5, but you won't be happy with 4x5" contact prints, then you now need a 4x5 enlarger ($$$).

I chose 5x7 for two reasons:

1) I can live with 5x7" contact prints, whereas 4x5" was just too small;

2) I prefer the less-square-ish shape of 5x7 to the more-square-ish shape of 4x5 and 8x10;

3) I'm too old and too weak to consider lugging around an 8x10 kit.

Sorry, make that three reasons!

You won't find any brand-new 5x7 camera for under a grand, but there are used ones in good shape to be had for less than that.

Whatever size you choose, I'd recommend that you buy a "normal" focal length lens, and use just that one lens for at least several months. You have to get used to seeing in LF, and you have enough other LF stuff to deal with, without adding the complexity of lens choice.

Put your money into a good camera, one lens, a few film holders, and a bunch of one type of film. Tri-X and HP5+ are good choices, as are some of the LF films offered by (APUG sponsors) Freestyle and J&C Photo.

BTW, as Mongo mentioned, there really aren't any holy wars over cameras. Film and developers, now that's a whole different story!

 

[photomc]

A bit different way of looking at getting into LF. The advice above is excellent, by people that know what they are talking about....but it depends on if you want to dive in or ease in. If you plan to dive in ignore the rest of this, if not consider the Crown/Speed Graphic, a 127 or 135 lens, only a couple of film holders, meter (do you prefer a spot meter or incident). Next processing, do you plan to process yourself, trays, drums, etc. Some find that LF is not for them after they actually buy everything and do not like how much it slows them down (I love it for that very reason).

The point I'm trying to make (and not getting there) is that if you have $1000 set aside, why not spend just a $200 to find out if that is where you really want to be. IMO, you can sell a Crown for pretty much what you paid for it, or better yet see if you know someone that will let you use one for a couple of months to see if LF is where you are going. Do you have a 4x5 enlarger? If not, I would consider going 5x7 so you can contact print and still shoot 4x5 later when you get an enlarger.

BTW, Welcome Matt....you do know that LF is a sickness?

 

[Ole]

BTW, as Mongo mentioned, there really aren't any holy wars over cameras. Film and developers, now that's a whole different story!

... and lens types, manufacturers, coating, shutters, film holders, dark cloths, ground glasses...

But cameras? No we leave that to the NiCanian crowd

BTW, my second-to last LF camera purchase was an old German "Reisekamera" - 13x18cm plate camera with four plare holders with film inserts, and a universal iris lens board. Less than $250 for the lot, leaving $750 for lenses - you could easily get a 121mm f:8 SA, a 210 Xenar and a 360 Tele-Xenar within the budget. But you would be limited to 13x18cm film until you could find 5x7" film sheaths ($50 for one dozen a few weeks later).

Oh no - I just remembered I bought another camera after that. Oh well - the principle's still sound even if my personal economy isn't

 

[removed account4]

#1: Anything. If it were me, I'd consider 5x7" too - a great size for contact prints without being as big, heavy and expensive as 8x10".

#2: For 4x5": 90mm, 150mm, 210mm. Just about any make, mine happen to be mostly Schneider.
For 5x7" I'd choose the same three focal lengths, or swap the 150 with a 165 Angulon and the 210mm with a 240 Symmar.

#3: 360mm, 120mm. Same here - same FL for 4x5" and 5x7".

Looking at this it looks as if I use the extra size of 5x7" to get a wider look, and that is essentially correct! With 4x5" I rarely run out of coverage, but I often run out of film area. 5x7" (and 13x18cm) is my favorite size. The 90mm f:8 Super Angulon is perhaps my most used lens.

what he said ...

-john

 

[dphphoto]

Your $1000. will be your initial investment, but believe me, once you've started you won't stop there. Invest in a good camera and maybe one lens to start with, and of course holders, tripod and a decent bag or case.
My lenses are a 120mm, a 210mm and a 400mm tele. It's not quite a doubling of one focal length to the next, but it's close enough.
I prefer multi-coated lenses in modern copal shutters, but there's nothing wrong with older lenses if the shutters are still decent.
Make sure you check out eBay. There's usually a good Tachahara or Shen-Hao, though the Shen-Haos seem to go for close to retail.
Good luck in your purchases, and welcome to the club. Dean

 

[df cardwell]

As I crawl into my asbestos suit, let me offer some advice:

Until you can make a perfect 11x14 from 35mm, you have no business being seduced by LF. After you can get all the quality inherent in 35, you will likely have no need for LF.

Shoot the 35, learn the craft. Someday you may want 4x5, and you'll have enough experience to determine what you want. And need.

Too much energy is consumed, and has always been, by 'metaphysical doubt' and 'existential anguish'. A different camera ( film, paper, developer... ) doesn't make you a better photographer. Any true craft is about the transformation of the craftsman. If anything, this is the fact which established photography's right to be considered equal to music or painting: the work IS made by the craftsman, and not the equipment.

But we resist the process of transformation. This largely explains the closet of cameras and lenses behind me.

All that said, and I feel the flames licking at my nomex booties,

1.) Midwest is a fine shop in Columbus.
2.) The simpler the camera, the better.
3.) The lens which replicates your most common 35 lens, the better.
4.) Keep it simple. Makes pictures, frame them, put them on the wall, make more pictures.

For me, making most of my pictures with a Leica and 35 mm lens, my most used 4x5 outfit is a Crown Graphic with a 120 Angulon. You can get away with a 127 Ektar, never rise or tilt or do any of that nonsense. Develop film in Rubbermaid dishtrays, make contact prints ( get a piece of 1/2 plate glass from a glass shop ). Take the 500 left over of your thousand and go shoot.

But spend the winter learning how to shoot the lights out with the 35. If you can't make a great print from 35, you can't make one from 4x5.

If you're in N. Ohio, come visit us sometime in Michigan !

d

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

As I crawl into my asbestos suit, let me offer some advice:

Until you can make a perfect 11x14 from 35mm, you have no business being seduced by LF. After you can get all the quality inherent in 35, you will likely have no need for LF.

Shoot the 35, learn the craft.

Having moved up from 35mm through MF, LF, and ULF I would put it the other way. Shoot 4x5", learn the craft, and then you'll see what the rather specialized 35mm tool can really do well and what it can't.

 

[df cardwell]

Having moved up from 35mm through MF, LF, and ULF I would put it the other way. Shoot 4x5", learn the craft, and then you'll see what the rather specialized 35mm tool can really do well and what it can't.

How can I argue with that ? Absolutely true.

But having BEGUN already... what to do ?

Anything but beginning a time-wasting journey of searching for a better way !

DAVID: what's this I hear about The Second Avenue Deli closing ?

Horrible ! What's a midwesterner to do ?

 

[Paul Sorensen]

As I crawl into my asbestos suit, let me offer some advice:

Until you can make a perfect 11x14 from 35mm, you have no business being seduced by LF. After you can get all the quality inherent in 35, you will likely have no need for LF.

Shoot the 35, learn the craft. Someday you may want 4x5, and you'll have enough experience to determine what you want. And need.

I will see if I can find that darned lighter.

I think that this is a valid point, but that there are other ways to approach this as well. I have head of college photography programs which require the students to use 4x5 only for the first year until they have learned photography well enough to be entrusted with 35mm

Too much energy is consumed, and has always been, by 'metaphysical doubt' and 'existential anguish'. A different camera ( film, paper, developer... ) doesn't make you a better photographer. Any true craft is about the transformation of the craftsman. If anything, this is the fact which established photography's right to be considered equal to music or painting: the work IS made by the craftsman, and not the equipment.

But we resist the process of transformation. This largely explains the closet of cameras and lenses behind me.

I agree that it is very easy to succumb to "the grass is always greener" syndrome. However, I also believe that the practice of doing 4X5, if you dedicate yourself to it, will make you a better photographer. Not the camera, but the practice of slowing down, visualizing your image, and placing value in each exposure you make. 35mm photography, and to some extent medium format, is too easy for people to really take the appropriate amount of time to experience each image that they take fully.

As for your original question, I agree with what has been said. I will add, don't overdo it and think you need to get something fancy. A basic camera will likely suit you fine and if you are like most of the people on the board here, you will go through a couple of cameras on the way toward finding the right one for you.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

DAVID: what's this I hear about The Second Avenue Deli closing ?

Horrible ! What's a midwesterner to do ?

Man, first it was the Kiev, and now this. Who knows. Maybe he can work it out with the landlord who wants to raise the rent from around $22,000 to over $32,000. The owner of the deli needs to renovate to comply with health regulations, but can't afford to do it if the rent is going to increase by that much. I like Katz's and the Carnegie, but the 2nd Ave. Deli is the only one of the three that is really kosher--not that I keep kosher, but it would be a real loss not to have one real old style kosher deli. A digital corned beef sandwich just doesn't cut the mustard.

 

[langedp]

I would strongly recommend a field camera rather than a monorail due to the ease of carrying the camera into the field and setting it up. You can use a monorail in the field, but it's not nearly as convenient as using a camera designed for ease of transportation and setup.

As with most posts on these forums, there are lots of conflicting opinions. Lot's of people use monorails in the field. Check out Jack Dykinga with his Arca Swiss. The Sinar F1 is a fine option and they are plentiful on eBay right now.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I've been experimenting with a Crown Graphic a few months ago that my roomate had borrowed from a friend, and I gotta admit that they are the right tool for the 4x5-curious.

The last thing you want when you start with a new setup is to have too many variables to consider at once, and feel the need to control everything. You want to have a couple of dry runs before you actually commit to something. I know I'm like that: my 35 and 120 cameras are pretty ordinary (some would say lame), but they give me the most important asset: having something in my hands. I find that being able to do something comes before trying to make it right all the way.

For the Crown, what I liked about it is that it was available, easy to use, quick to setup, and I could use it with the rest of the tools I had on hand: tripod, developing trays, meter, etc.

I am of the opinion that your first camera doesn't matter, because no matter how good it is, you're still beginning and will not push the envelope yet.

Your SECOND camera may actually matter more, because you will then know what you like and what you don't.

 

[df cardwell]

Man, first it was the Kiev, and now this. Who knows. Maybe he can work it out with the landlord who wants to raise the rent from around $22,000 to over $32,000. The owner of the deli needs to renovate to comply with health regulations, but can't afford to do it if the rent is going to increase by that much. I like Katz's and the Carnegie, but the 2nd Ave. Deli is the only one of the three that is really kosher--not that I keep kosher, but it would be a real loss not to have one real old style kosher deli. A digital corned beef sandwich just doesn't cut the mustard.

ABSOLUTELY ! There is no point in being episcopalian without the 2nd !

My first guilty pleasure was visiting NYC as a teenager. Ate at the 2nd, rode the subway all night, and a carriage ride in the park with... well, never mind. Decided New York was better than Disneyland.

In my Boston days, if it had been a tough year, and as a photographer, they were usually tough, I'd fast for a couple days, take the train to NYC, and go 3 days without sleep. Collapse on the train home. First stop, the 2nd. After that Olden's or Hansen's, or Wall Street. The rest is a blur.

The next three weeks felt like Boston was Vermont.

I've learned to make a real bagel... but the 2nd !

Wait.. isn't this about 4x5 ? OK...

Paul, David... you're right.

.

 

[Oren Grad]

Having moved up from 35mm through MF, LF, and ULF I would put it the other way. Shoot 4x5", learn the craft, and then you'll see what the rather specialized 35mm tool can really do well and what it can't.

I'm with David on this. IMO there's no such thing as a "perfect 11x14 from 35mm" - the format runs out of steam well before that. Having moved up from 35mm, etc., etc., I'd suggest trying something very different from what you've experienced in the past - get a 4x5 or a 5x7 camera with one lens that best matches how you naturally see things, and then make lots of negatives and lots of contact prints - forget the enlargements for now. As a result of this exercise, you may find that dinky little prints are not your thing, and that you crave 16x20 wall posters. That's fine, but you'll make that decision having a much better understanding of what ultimate technical quality is, and of what kinds of tradeoffs are entailed in going for the big stuff. Just my $0.02...

 

[wilhelm]

I'll throw a big "yeah, what he said" to David's comments, and add a few of my own.

One thing that I think is very important when doing any technical task (and I'm speaking solely of the operation of photographing here) is to know how the technology got to be where it is, so you can use it to its fullest advantage. I would suggest that using a large-format camera distills the operation of photography down to its purest form; photographers of a hundred years ago were using view cameras, and went through almost the exact same operations that we do today. Sure, modern cameras are a little lighter, a little more rugged, lenses are generally better, films faster, with better characteristics, etc., but the root of making a photograph is exactly the same as it was way back then. And to have a more complete understanding of how we got to where we are now, we have to know where we came from, and how we got there.

It's exactly the same, in my mind, as driving a manual transmission car offers at least a glimpse of just what's going on inside that car, which we retain even when driving an automatic. Or programming in an assembly language allows us to see what's going on inside that silicon chip that's running our computer, even when we're using, for instance, the php in which this site is written.

Am I making any sense here?

Will

 

[seadrive]

It's exactly the same, in my mind, as driving a manual transmission car offers at least a glimpse of just what's going on inside that car, which we retain even when driving an automatic. Or programming in an assembly language allows us to see what's going on inside that silicon chip that's running our computer, even when we're using, for instance, the php in which this site is written.

Am I making any sense here?

I think so.

Not to go too far adrift, but to follow along with your programming analogy, the guy I first worked for in programming told me that, when debugging a program, it helps to be able to think like a compiler writer. Of course, it's difficult to think like a compiler writer, unless you've actually written a compiler yourself.