Thanks for the information. I'll be doing some looking in to this direction.
-- Bruce Saturday, January 19, 2008, 10:26:31 AM, you wrote: WR> ----- Original Message ----- WR> From: "Bruce Dayton" WR> Subject: Re: PESO - The Stand >> Would you give me some ideas of exactly what kind of setup I would be >> looking for? Such as body, lenses, tripod, backs, etc - I really know >> nothing about large format - the biggest I have shot is 67. WR> Most of the stuff of yours that I have seen would be well served with a wood WR> field camera. WR> This is what mine looks like: WR> http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/tachihara.html. WR> I've used everything from old Dagors to modern Nikkors, and am very partial WR> to Schneider and Fujinon lenses. On 4x5, the 150mm is considered the WR> "normal" lens (similar FOV as a 50mm lens on 35mm film). That picture you WR> just showed would have required a 600mm ($$$$) lens to achieve the same as WR> what you got with your 135, so keep in mind, there are some pretty serious WR> limitations with big film. WR> A nice 4x5 kit is something in the 65mm to 90mm range, a 150ish mm and a WR> short telephoto, 250mm-300mm is nice. WR> I preferred the 210 for most of my LF work, and as I noted a while back, I WR> just found a 65mm Super Angulon that I had completely forgotten about. This WR> is exciting for me, as I really like wide angle lenses. WR> I don't know much about scanning big negs, I prefer wet prints from film. WR> The few scans of a big neg I have done were with my Epson 2450 scanner, and WR> they scans were quite acceptable. They are also huge, and will bring lesser WR> computers to a standstill as they attempt to manipulate the files. A PSD WR> file from a 4x5 tranny scanned at a decent resolution will be up around WR> 600mb or larger. Bring a big computer to this game if you choose to play it. WR> Film backs are what makes the kit big. My 4x5 kit weighs in at close to 40 WR> pounds, half of which at least is the 2 dozen film backs whick allows me to WR> take 48 pictures before reloading. WR> You think carefully about every exposure before you push the button with WR> large format, both because of the cost of film, but also because a wasted WR> shot is a big waste of resources if you can't reload your backs easily. WR> When we were touring the Southwestern States on a yearly basis back in the WR> mid 90s, I carried a dark tent with me, and reloaded film backs every night WR> at my campsite. If I was in a particularly photogenic place, I would WR> sometimes find a shady spot and reload film on a picnic table. WR> This does tend to attract attention from other tourists, and in the era of WR> paranoia that we live in now, might attract unwanted attention as well. WR> You are doing something unusual, therfore you must be investigated, after WR> all. WR> The point is, as long as you are willing to reload film backs frequently, WR> you can get by with fewer backs. If you aren't venturing far from your WR> vehicle, you can carry fewer backs as well. WR> Something I thought about doing, but never did, was to make a set of WR> saddlebags for my dog so that he could carry some of my gear for me. If and WR> when I start shooting large format again, Jester will probably find himself WR> a new job as a pack mule. WR> As for the finished product, I can pick out an 11x14 made from 35mm film WR> from across a room. the quality difference is that apparent. It's more WR> difficult with digital because of the lack of grain, but if you get closer, WR> the lack of fine detail becomes apparent. The real beauty of large format is WR> the smoothness of the finished prints, and this is something that is readily WR> apparent in print, though digital processing takes much of that advantage WR> away from big film, as digital printing ends up being 8 bit. WR> Something I've been playing with in an attempt to get decent resolution from WR> digital is multiple stitched exposures. WR> This shot WR> http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/peso/pages/Arch1Panorama1.html WR> is a dozen exposures pasted together. No big deal on a computer screen, but WR> the 16x24 inch print that rolled of my Epson does rival large format for WR> visual appeal, though I have a hunch that I would still prefer a wet print WR> made from 4x5 FP-4+. WR> I'm kind of a contrary person that way. WR> William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
