Sharp Landscapes on the Fuji GW690II (90mm)

DREW WILEY said:

Ctein didn't make big prints. Perhaps he sometimes does now that he's entirely switched over to inkjet printing. He'll certainly do them on demand. But his former preferred technique - dye transfer - is simply incapable of truly sharp prints (the dyes always bleed a little bit), and inkjet itself is limited in that respect. If you want to see the true potential of a film, you need a film-like printing medium with equal detail capacity, such as Cibachrome or Fuji Supergloss (which he personally hated the look of, but I specialized in). But I've discussed all this with Ctein in person; and I hold to my own opinion, that unless you're printing a book intended to be read at a comfortable minor distance, or making panels for some airport lobby wall way up high, or similar store advertising decor, the whole idea of "normal viewing distance" is basically just an excuse for whatever.

11X14 and 12X16 enlargers are very rare now; and the few that exist aren't making big wall prints, if being used at all. That's gone over almost entirely to inkjet. It's far more convenient to work with 8x10. Yes, I know there's one particular well-known individual who shoots 11X14 color neg film and turns that into big panels; but those are necessarily digitally "cleaned up" and stitched, and not optically printed. Some of his originals were a downright mess. Most of those types get tired of it and end up defaulting to MF digital backs, which are well below even 4X5 film performance capacity.

The whole point in the old 11X14 studio stand cameras was that, the bigger the negative, the easier it was to retouch. But unless it was someone like Hurrell with rich Hollywood clients, nearly all of that was contact printed.

How many megapixels do I need? None. That simplifies that whole issue. I see big 40" or 60" lab-done high-megapixel inkjet prints all the time. It's an amazing technology; but compared to the look of decent large format film prints, it stinks. But nowadays everyone seems to want big just for the sake of big.

Click to expand...

Trust me, I wasn't trying to ignite the whole film v. digital war, I was merely pointing out that the obsession with format and what it can do exists in both worlds.


I have personally printed 11x14 from 35mm negs and the prints were tack sharp. This requires good technique, a fine grained film, proper development discipline, and a subject that isn't so full of tiny details they get obscured by the limitations of format. By the time you get to 6x9, in my mind, the discussion is pretty much over. It remains my favorite all around format. That said, 4x5 conveniently offers the one thing that is rare in roll film cameras: movements, and you cannot beat what they do.

Let it be noted, thought, that lenses probably still matter more than the format. I have negatives shot with Mamiya TLRs and with Hasselblads and the 'Blad negs are far and away sharper. Similarly, I have three 6x9 cameras: GW690II, Mamiya Universal, and a three lens Baby Speed Graphic. Of these, the Mamiya is easily in 3rd place for sharpness, even though it's quite good in its own right. The 101mm f/4.5 Ektar on the Baby Speed is a razor blade and the 90mm on the Fuji is pretty great too. Interestingly, the lens on my Fuji GA645Zi is superbly sharp as well. Nothwithstanding the 645 format, at 11x14 I have a hard time telling negatives from that camera and from a 'blad.

What you think is "tack sharp", Chuck, someone else might not. But yeah, with a fllm like Pan F and a good enlarger lens, 11X14's can look pretty decent. I've done that. But if you have a 6X9 Pan F print next to it, the distinction will be quite apparent.

My very sharpest 6X9 roll film results are actually from Nikon M and Fuji A lenses used in conjunction with roll film backs on a 4X5 camera. But of course, in that case you have the advantage of plane of focus movements too.

I have a friend I've backpacked with numerous times who use a Contax 6X6, expensive Zeiss lenses, and Tech Pan film. Very very sharp prints. BUT... with Tech Pan all the fine tonality at the upper and lower extremes of the scale is largely lost; so the textural quality is rather disappointing. While Efke 25 was still around, I turned him onto that instead.

Interesting thread as I plan to head to the tropics with the GW690 as well, maybe tripod for long exposure and some scenes (waterfalls). I'm not much of a strict landscape photographer so for me it has mostly been f16 and be there.

250swb said:

Personally I wouldn't bother using a polariser with a rangefinder camera, you can't see directly what you are getting and even small changes between looking through it and then mounting it can prove to be wildly off, besides which it can deaden landscape and cause problematic skies if not careful.

Click to expand...

Rhetorical question, which exhibits that I might need to get back to 101 of Polarisers: If the filter is rotated towards maximum polarisation, then it should work well generally? Just that it will be rather binary as in max-min effect and there is no way to gauge or fine tune? Then, as of transmission and metering, it's just the filter's factor. It has been years since I have used polarisers extensively but got a nice Hoya HD 67mm, which seems to be nicely regarded and only loses a 1-1/3 of a stop.
Note to self: Try out using the CPL this upcoming spring with some Provia.

1kgcoffee said:

8x15"

Click to expand...

A nice feature of the format is that sort of Xpan by just cropping the negative. The largest I have printed is 20x24" from an Acros Negative, handheld and f16. Grain started to be detectable, sharpness at viewing distance is nice although there the 90mm shot on hyperfocal showed limitations.
Adding to the LF discussion earlier, I chose the GW690 as it was the best bang for the buck option available as well as largest negative size that I would find practical for my (non LF) lifestyle.

When it comes to Grain Peeping, I do wish the MF lenses were vis a vis like 135 sharpness wise, even if the magnification does not require. The Fujinon 90mm is good, though the Perez/Thalmann ~65lp/mm appear average. In my experience this hasn't meant much, and the GW has pretty much been the only camera that I have needed in Medium format, cropping down to other formats as needed.
I am also planning a tropical trip with the GW690, tagging along with a Folder (Super Ikonta 534/16). I need to test that Tessar more, but the Double Gauss Fujinon shines compared to it! Alongside these diffraction discussions, a simpler folder triplet or tessar stopped down "converges" in image quality and adds for some flexibility in shooting options.
I think viewing high resolution scans on screen also does not do film that much of a justice compared to print. In these tests other models hit much higher lp/mm numbers, but I have seen some scans from the Mamiya 7 (+100lp/mm) that honestly I would not tell a difference. Then also, the hyperrealism of some digital appears confusing to me, and most non-film B&W appears "off". The nature of a longer focal length for the larger film format as well as being film are positive differentiating characteristics nowadays.

Copy Pasting the Perez/Thalmann test results:

Take those Perez charts with a grain of salt. We don't even know the exact methodolgy involved, and many of the results appear downright questionable to experienced people. With the Fuji GW series superb 90mm lens, you're really film resolution limited, not lens resolution limited. If a representative M7 6X7 lens is perhaps a tiny bit higher per MTF, that is more than offset by the greater surface area of the 6X9 Fuji image itself.

Now if you stick a polarizer in front of the lens, involving 2 layers of glass plus the polarizing material, of course the sharpness is going to be slightly affected, depending on the quality of the specific polarizer. But with a rangefinder, it's difficult to fine tune the desired effect anyway, since you're looking through a separate viewfinder.

I don't like printing 6x9 b&w images larger than nominal 16X20, but have often done 20X24 color Ektar ones.

Anyone know of a repair shop that actually does resolution tests where you get a report detailing how good individual lenses are at every f stop?
It was always possible to get a less than optimum specimen of a sharp lens

Chuck1 said:

Anyone know of a repair shop that actually does resolution tests where you get a report detailing how good individual lenses are at every f stop?
It was always possible to get a less than optimum specimen of a sharp lens

Click to expand...

Benchmarking would be interesting. As of general repairs, people report it is getting harder to service cameras. So far the Fuji has proven to be spartan and solid.

I just recalled a reason why I don't shoot hyperfocal with my Fuji and always focus with the RF, probably a quirk of my unit: I can focus beyond infinity, never finding formal documentation other than users pointing vaguely this might be to accomodate thermal expansion. Using the RF, Infinity falls at the "R" mark, and this is actual Infinity that I get on film. The 1m focused with RF is also sharp! (Bear DoF). I did initially use the scale and hyperfocal but got some soft frames... and well, if you got a RF, might as well use it.

Chuck - it's easy to do the tests yourself. These cameras and their lenses are from a relatively recent era when quality control has been quite predictable. I have both a GW690ii and a GW690iii. Results are identical. Fuji lens quality control was among the best.

One minor problem with these cameras is that the plastic rangefinder window can get hazy over time and need cleaning. Doing the outside of the element is easy; but to get to any inner haze you have to take the camera apart, a bit of a chore. That condition might affect accuracy of focus. If you need to critically focus them in dim light, a regular Nikon F thread-in magnifier will fit and make the central rangefinder spot area easier to see.

Prest_400 said:

Interesting thread as I plan to head to the tropics with the GW690 as well, maybe tripod for long exposure and some scenes (waterfalls). I'm not much of a strict landscape photographer so for me it has mostly been f16 and be there.


Rhetorical question, which exhibits that I might need to get back to 101 of Polarisers: If the filter is rotated towards maximum polarisation, then it should work well generally?

Click to expand...

There is nothing to stop you putting a polariser on a rangefinder camera, except it's a rangefinder camera and you can't directly see the polarising effect through the lens. Unless you have a fancy swinging arm system like Leica have for 35mm polarising filters you have to hold the filter up to your eye or in front of the viewing window, get the effect how you want it, note where on the filter the front ring is oriented, and screw it on to the lens keeping that same orientation. It's advisable to pre mark the outside ring with dabs of different coloured paint to help identify where it's oriented, but the problem remains, the position where your eye was accessing the scene and where the lens is aren't the exact same position and axis, so even an inch or two can make a difference to the polarising effect.

Detecting flare is a bigger problem. Being a wide-normal or moderately wide lens with a minimal shade, shooting into the sun is problematic to say the least; and if you shade the lens with a cap or your hand, you'll probably block the viewfinder window itself. I made a little adjustable flag and malleable wire stem which locks into the bracket at the top of the camera, which can be quickly swung out of the way if necessary, then quickly returned to the same position.

DREW WILEY said:

Detecting flare is a bigger problem. Being a wide-normal or moderately wide lens with a minimal shade, shooting into the sun is problematic to say the least; and if you shade the lens with a cap or your hand, you'll probably block the viewfinder window itself. I made a little adjustable flag and malleable wire stem which locks into the bracket at the top of the camera, which can be quickly swung out of the way if necessary, then quickly returned to the same position.

Click to expand...

Would you please show us a photograph of the shade and perhaps some design details. With slr, one can most of the time see the flare before the photograph has been taken, with range finder cameras, it can be harder to detect the flare and compensate. Every idea has its own pros and cons.

The standard that I can remember for large-scale colour prints is what Michael Fatali had in his Springdale gallery below Zion national Park. My friend and I, when touring Utah in 1999, wandered in there randomly with no idea what this guy's work was like. We came out feeling like the world had changed.

Fatali was a skillful Ciba printer, but not always an honest one. Some of his most spectacular images were actually astronomically impossible composites of up to three different shots sandwich stacked in his enlarger carrier at the same time. The sleight of hand is actually more detailed and seamless than can be done via scanning and PS alteration. A dead giveaway is the presence of precisely the same crescent moon in precisely the same position in the sky in several different subjects. He was also a BS marketer, claiming he had waited days on end for a particular kind of lighting in otherwise often photographed predictable locations, and that certain of his prints had been displayed all over the world, and were now finally available for sale - in which case they already would have been 50% faded by then, given the abusive high UV display lighting involved.

That being said, the accusation of many of the actual colors in his prints being somehow fake is mistaken. Anyone who has worked with chrome film in those Southwestern canyons knows just how unusual and intense some or the hues they encounter can actually be. "Desert varnish" on rock walls, for example, can be downright iridescent from certain angles of view, and some of the colors and reflections in pools of water can indeed be almost other-worldly. Sadly, in this era of GPS coordinates and U-tube travel videos, locations which rarely saw a visitor a week now have permit quotas of 50 noisy people a day.

Anyway, there were a number of us who could print Ciba at least as good as Fatali, and certainly mount and frame the prints better than he could. But he unfortunately became a person non grata among the large format community over his Delicate Arch scorching fiasco, which got him in trouble with the law too. I've always found his work too tourist-oriented and not personal enough; but he was in fact making a decent living that way, and had three gallery locations overall, with only the Springdale one long-term successful.

He used the same kind of camera as I did - an early Phillips 8x10, and the same selection of Fuji chrome films. When Ciba dried up,
I switched over to Fuji Supergloss and Kodak CN film; but I don't think he ever transitioned over. He still maintains a few websites; but don't believe half of what he claims about his outdoor exploits. Many others were in those same places before him.

But more on topic - what seemed hopeless for medium format when I started out, at least compared to what 4X5 could do, is now not
so disparate. When all we had was Ektachrome 64, medium format just didn't work for me once the Cibachrome enlargements were bigger than 11X14 inches. With today's Ektar film, I can easily print a really crisp 20X24 Fujiflex Supergloss, perhaps even 20X30, from 6X9 Texas Leica shots.

Interesting, thanks. I was skeptical of his 'waiting times' myself to be honest, given that he knew the locations, and the predictability of SW weather.
And yes, I see him as a top example of 'Commercial-Art' rather than 'Art-art'.

Going back to the Fuji, yes, another vote here from me, it's a capable and really useful camera. I have the III version but a well-used one.
I can believe the Perez/Thalmann numbers above - but bear in mind the contrast at say 10 or 20cy at full aperture is lower.
It is very consistent across the aperture range. There nothing much between 16x20" prints from this and ones that I've taken on my Horseman VH with a 120 Symmar-S or the 75 Super Angulon.
For a fixed focal length, I've found the 90mm almost an ideal compromise, there's an awful lot you can do with it.

The built in shade on the Fuji GW690iii is a real annoyance. I don't know if it's the same on the i and ii. The original series with interchangeable lenses don't have this problem.

On the iii, the shade interferes with operation of the shutter speed and aperture adjustment. They're covered up with the shade retracted, and even when the shade is extended there's not enough room for easy finger access. Forget about gloves. Fuji always seems to have a totally brain-dead "feature" on all their cameras that spoils what could be perfection. The ridiculous lens shade is the one on the GW690iii. I took a dremel tool to mine to get rid of that blasted piece of junk. I now just use a regular collapsible rubber lens shade, but it does obscure the lower right corner of the viewfiner, sigh.
Since the original shade covers the shutter and aperture setting nubbins, when retracted, those nubbins don't protrude very much, so it's still not that easy to change settings. Fuji just needed to be spanked, but it's too late now!

I also like the older models with snap-on rectangular lens shade (and a small cutout for viewfinder).

Other than that, I believe the OP has one of the best medium format cameras to capture landscape in stunning details, color, and contrast. I'm partial to E6 chromes and low-ISO B&W film, but Ektar 100 will work well too.

1kgcoffee said:

Heading to central America in a few weeks and bringing the Texas Leica 6x9 with a tripod.

I want ultra-sharp landscape images with some foreground. Besides tripod and cable release, would it be best to shoot hyperfocal at f32? Is that like f11 or f16 on 35mm. Or better to be around f16? What can I do to up my landscape game to the limits with this camera?

Also, is a polarizer worth the effort?

Click to expand...

above f/16, You'll have to deal with diffraction ruining the benefit of DOF. If you want ultra sharp, focus on what you want ultra shrp

The shade is exactly the same on the ii and the iii. I use both. The built-in shade is both a blessing and a minor curse. I soon got used to it, and learned to make my shutter speed and f-stop settings before final composition. I have never lost a shot due to the nature of that shade. But I figured out something better and quite light and compact supplementary to that if needed. Sirius wants me to post a picture of it, but it's really just like a miniature lighting flag in a studio, attached to the top of the camera via a simple hot shoe adapter.

Back to Mark - there's been all kinds of informed questioning of Perez in general over on the LF site, especially by Bob S., who certainly knows a thing or two about the whole subject, having been the Rep for a lens distributor. We have no idea of whether or not the many pertinent variables were taken account of. And one gets especially suspicious of the results when lenses optimized for a restricted repro magnification range are seemingly evaluated in the same manner as general purpose lenses. I repeat, take anything you read on that Perez list with a grain of salt. For all I know, those specs might only reflect how much eye fatigue was involved at a certain point in time.

Otherwise, the Texas Leica 90mm lens is what it is - very sharp indeed, and ideal in many respects for a single fixed lens; but I often travel with the P67 system too, for sake of telephoto work. Going long-haul in the mountains I have to decide whether the somewhat panoramic normal-wide aspect of the Fuji is the best bet, based on the nature of the terrain I will be facing, or if I need the more versatile capacity, but slower operation, of a set of lenses and 6X9 roll film backs for my little 4x5 folder. If spectacular distant details or fascinating pinnacles is apt to be involved, the 4x5 is the only way to go. Working from roads, however, I can have my cake and eat it too - the convenience of the Texas Leica, the quick reach of Pentax teles, plus a view camera, even 8x10. But I work best when I narrow down my options to just certain pieces of equipment.

I have an agreement with my wife not to buy any new photo toys unless I either sell off something of equivalent value first, or come up with the money on the side. So I made a teak countertop for someone in my shop and earned some extra cash. I could have bought a very clean Mamiya 7, or a mint GF670 folder instead, or BOTH a Fuji 6X9 RF and a long coveted mint 300EDIF for my P67. I'm very glad I chose the latter option. A little more hustling, and I came up with the cash for a second Texas Leica, so I could use black and white film in one, and color in the other. There are a few photo-related purchases in my lifetime I've come to regret - but certainly not those !!!

Sharktooth, you've just reminded me ... the lens hood is annoying, but I can deal with it. More annoying to me is the lack of a 'B' setting and the need to use 'T' ; where the shutter doesn't close until you start winding the advance lever. If you're shooting Infra-Red at say 2 to 4 seconds ( common ) you end up using the lens cap to finish the exposure, then carrying the camera on to the next shot with the advance lever sticking out.

It's OK Drew I have my reservations about the Perez list - but it is useful at times.
One gripe is that all of the LF lenses ( including ones with much bigger image circle ) are tested on 4x5" , which doesn't help you a lot in many cases.

Mark, with patience searching for them, in many cases, the manufacturers of LF lenses do have spec sheets and graphs which clearly show the performance relative to different formats, including tangential performance relative to tilts and swings. Casual web reviews are another thing entirely, and often misleading.

But in this case, where a fixed lens RF camera is involved, things are pretty simple by comparison, although it might be helpful if the actual amount of falloff at specific f-stops were made more apparent for sake of those contemplating the wider 65mm lens option versus the 90.

Regarding the lack of a B setting, yeah it can be annoying; and I thought I had forgotten how to do it right, but did it anyway the other day intuitively. As long as it's several seconds, rather than just two or so, it's feasible to put the lens cap back on without spoiling the sharpness, and reset the system. Funny they never included the standard option; but they allegedly designed these cameras for sake of the large group photography trade, before the rest of us discovered how useful they are in other ways.

takilmaboxer said:

Where does one find a glass negative carrier ( I have a 45MCRX) in today's world?

Click to expand...

Ebay

If it was me, I would do what I have done with these cameras, TMY-2, f/16, XTOL 1:1, inversion agitation.

DREW WILEY said:

Mark, with patience searching for them, in many cases, the manufacturers of LF lenses do have spec sheets and graphs which clearly show the performance relative to different formats...

Click to expand...

I think you're misunderestimating my experience in this area !

Well, in that case, my apologies, Mark. I was simply referring to how it can take some digging to find those kinds of specs today. I have a number of old printed sheets from Schneider and Rodenstock; but now it's getting hard to retrieve that information even on their dedicated sites. And I don't even have anything equivalent from Nikon or Fuji in my binders, though I have plenty of relevant experience with some of their lenses to make a valid appraisal.

By comparison, the manner in which Nikon supports their microscope division is spectacular. Large format lenses seem like their forgotten stepchild. Yes, you can dig up old Nikon and Fuji brochures (which I have hard copy of anyway) with nominal descriptions and rough specs; but it's not the same thing.

Yes, it is harder to find things now. I have a large collection of hard-copy , which started in the early-90's, and I gather pdf's whenever I can find anything new. I have had major chunks of extra info from Marco Cavina from Italy in recent years. It's nice background information for my job, as well as being just... interesting.