Slashdot Mirror

I'm not sure I'd say the list prices are "cheap". They're around the price that I bought some of my Olympus 4/3rds lenses for (50/2 Macro, 14-54).

But they're incredible values, because of what the can produce. The lenses won't be as "sharp" as say 4/3rds lenses in measured lp/mm, but they don't need to be anywhere near that sharp, because the film is so much larger.

For landscapes, there is always a tradeoff between resolution and depth of field. There is actually a formula that determines optimum f-stop that balances defocus and diffraction, given what you want to have in focus in your image: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html/. There are a few things that result in 4x5 cameras producing much higher image-quality than 35mm cameras or DSLRs: (1) At equivalent f-stops for DOF, large format lenses perform much closer to the diffraction limit, thus you can have have larger prints; (2) The film is so much larger, so if you have a film with the same resolution/sensitivity, the effects of 1/Rf = 1/(1/Rl + 1/Rf) aren't as degrading. You will capture far closer to the aerial resolution than you would with 35mm or DSLR.

If you're into portraiture, 4x5 and 8x10 is great. For 4x5, many use portrait lengths of 135, 150, or 220mm (slightly shorter than normal to slightly longer than normal). Some good ones are the 135/3.5 Xenotar or 135/3.5 Carl Zeiss Planar. I got my 135/3.5 Xenotar for around $600. There is a 150/2.8 Xenotar on eBay right now for $5000 (ridiculously overpriced, as I've seen one sell for $1500 before). Yes, 135mm on 4x5 is "equivalent" to around 38mm on 35mm, if you consider the diagonal of 3.75x4.75in, a far cry normal portrait length. The rules for 35mm cameras shouldn't be blindly applied to 4x5; but if you really insist on longer lenses, there is an $5,900 Voigtlander Apo Lanthar 300/4.5 for $5,900 on eBay. However, with large format, many have found that you can get closer to the subject without having unpleasing results.

It is worth noting that because of the incredible detail 4x5's get, a lot of 4x5 portraiture is full body shots. You can crop to H&S and still get far more detail than from even full-frame cameras. For full-body portraiture, 135 or 150 mm works (even 90mm, depending on what else you want in the shot).

I'm working on a T8-based DIY set of softboxes to produce ~40,000 lumens total. This would allow relatively easy focus with a 305/9 lens indoors even.

"Turns out the refractive index of nose grease (i.e. wipe your finger down the OUTSIDE of your nose!) is approximately the same as celluloid."

I think old photographers must be a dying breed. The compatability of nose grease and celluloid has been well known for generations -- and was even suggested in books, in the area of spotting negatives. Lost art. I'm not joking.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archi ve/index.php/t-15124.html

And the aperture is never so small as to give noticeable diffraction anyway.

Small aperture can induce diffraction, noticeably softening your photos. Optimal sharpness in most lenses typically occurs around F8.

There is a sign at the site saying "No Photography Permitted", which as far as I know is legitimate, as any reasonably close site from which a picture could be taken is on private property.

There's nothing they can do to prevent you taking a picture of it from a helicopter, assuming you stay clear of FAA flight regulations. But the developers who own 17-Mile Drive, Pebble Beach, etc., also say that the image is part of their trademark, so any commercial use of the image requires paying a fee.

Of course, there are similar or worse restrictions on photography in other countries.

-ccm

Well, the i9900 does give the R800 a run for it's money on gamut. The i9900 has a better green gamut all around, and beats the R800 on dark reds and pinks. But the R800 has a significant advantage in blues, indigos, and violets, as well as saturated yellows and yellowish greens. It's hard to tell which color gamut covers a larger total volume in an animated 3D rendering, but it's a close call. They both certainly have their advantages and disadvantages. I have to admit I haven't kept up that closely with Canon, and didn't realize they were using an 8-color inkset now. (Although I know it's been 10 months since Canon's press release.) Yes, it's competitive in gamut, and resolution (i9900 at 11 million dpi^2 and the Epson at 8 million dpi^2, both of which are arbitrarily high) and minimum droplet size (i9900 at 2 picoliter, R800 at 1.5 picoliter.) But it's not at all comparable in longevity, if that's something that you care about.

As for the "bronzing" issue. Yes, the spray does fix the bronzing issue. The reason you get the "bronzing" with Ultrachrome inks is that the inks are thicker and they actually lay down a thick coating of ink that sit on top of the UltraCrome compatible microporous-coated inkjet papers. Since the paper is glossy, and the ink puts down such a thick layer on top that it does not fully soak into the paper, you can see it standing on top and it looks matte comapred to the paper. Putting a glossy layer on top of the ink completely fixes the problem. Yes, I've seen this first hand. Yes, other people have seen this first hand. And yes, it is marketed by experts for this quality. It's the exact same thing that the new R800 does to solve the problem- put down a glossy layer on top of the matte ink. Therefore the whole print surface is glossy- problem solved. Since I've done this dozens of times, and it works, I'm curious what your evidence is that makes you say "Sorry, but a "protective spray" doesn't fix the bronzing issue"

As for underestimating the seriousness of the problem- I made a series of 8.5 x 11 prints, including some with lots of blacks, on papers known to exhibit the problem (including Epson Premium Glossy Photo paper), and showed them to a group of 8 people. First I asked for comments without mentioning the bronzing effect. No one mentioned anything like it. Then I told them about the effect, and asked them if they could see it. Only one out of eight people said they could see this effect on their own, without me suggesting they angle the paper. These people were sitting around a table in a room with multiple bright lights, passing the prints around, so it's not like I was controlling the lighting or viewing angle. And that one person who saw it thought it was cool! They said it brought out details in the darkest regions of the print that they otherwise could not see, and gave it a "3D look." I have looked at a lot (a thousand?) prints from the 2200, and including hundreds of black and white prints, where the bronzing is supposed to be most noticeable. Unless the light catches it at certain angles, the problem is completely invisible. With a controlled viewing angle where you don't get glare off the paper, I defy anyone to tell me if a print was made with ultrachromes or not based on seeing "bronzing." I've got otherwise identical glossy prints right here in front of me as I type, from an Epson 2200 and an HP, and I can't see the difference unless I tilt the pages to get glare off the light. Even with a magnifying glass. And I'm using a bright, diffuse, flourescent light- which is supposed to be the worst viewing conditions for bringing out the problem. Have you actually seen this problem, to be so sure that "the problem is more severe then then you're suggesting"?

The article is making something mundane sound really impressive. A little research shows that there is an entire community of Ultra-Large Format Photographers who will laugh at this guy.

After all, ULF cameras can be easily purchased commercially, at sizes up to 20x24:

Ebony cameras (Look at bottom-left frame for 20x24 cameras).

Wisner cameras

Film (which comes in single-shot sheets) must be custom-ordered from Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Bergger, etc.

As far as the focussing question: these cameras have movements such as tilt and swing to change the plane of focus so that nearby blades of grass and distant mountains are all in focus.

Again, nothing innovative, radical, or impressive is described in this article. If the reporter had bothered to do some research, he would have found some far more impressive photographers to highlight.

It may be a "piece of cake" to make a 30x40 from a 6 MP camera, and is it to make one from a webcam too. Problem is the *quality* won't compare to 8x10. To see the level of quality attainable with LF film even scanned at a modest resolution, check this page of landscape photographs.

Curiously, this question is just discussed today on largeformatphotography.info, possibly the main web forum for discussion of large format photography (the kind that was practised by Adams).

just use a Large Format Camera (largeformatphotography.info). you know, the kind you see in old movies with the photographer under a big cloth. the film typically is 4x5 or 8x10 INCHES, easily trumping anything you can get from a digital slr.