------------------------------------------------------- FidoNet PHOTO Conference<->InterNet EMail List To subscribe to the list, send an EMail message to: listserv@wnybbs.net With the words: SUBSCRIBE PHOTO To Unsubscribe: UNSUBSCRIBE PHOTO To post a message to the list, send E-Mail to: photo@wnybbs.net ------------------------------------------------------- --- * Origin: WNYBBS FidoNet<->InterNet E-Mail Gateway (1:2613/10) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 137 PHOTOGRAPHY Ref: F5G00076 Date: 04/18/98 From: HAP NEWSOM Time: 10:57pm \/To: STANLEY SYKES (Read 0 times) Subj: Lens Length Stanley Hello Stanley! SS>Hi Hap, SS>You wrote in a message to Matthew Kiwala: SS> HN> I thought a 127 or 135mm lens was normal for 4X5. Are you sure on SS> HN> the 210mm? I've been told that is a short tele for 4X5. SS> HN> chat with you soon! SS> HN> hap SS>Well going by the formula Ed put on here recently that SS>standard focal lenght is equal to the digonal I get 162mm SS>but as I have not seen a lens of that size I would guess SS>the 135mm or 200mm would be the nearest. I'm set then as I have a 165mm lens SS>4" * 25.4 = 101.6mm SS>5" * 25.4 = 127mm SS>Square root of ( 101^2 * 127^2 ) = 162.64mm SS>Standard angle of view = 53deg =360/PI*ATAN(0.5*Diag / Focal Length) SS>The reverse of this formula (Diag/2)/TAN(Radian(Angle/2)) SS> ^Only needed if you use Spreadshee SS>Will give you the focal lenght for any given angle of view SS>eg 50deg Standard, 25deg Slight telephoto (100mm on 36mm SS>film) Wide angle 90deg (around 22mm) SS>Regards, SS>Stan AAAAAAARrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhh! Now I remember why I hated calculus! chat with you soon! hap * SLMR 2.1a * DOS: Tells a computer what to do with itself! --- Maximus 2.02 * Origin: Awakening - Lakewood WA (253)582-5579 HST16/V32b/VFC/V34 (1:138/102) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 137 PHOTOGRAPHY Ref: F5G00077 Date: 04/19/98 From: HAP NEWSOM Time: 12:49am \/To: LARRY BOLCH (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Wide and Wider larry LB>In the epistle "Wide and Wider (Hap) 1/" scribed 04-13-98 15:19, LB>Hap Newsom did thus proclaim to Larry Bolch: LB>Hap LB>HN> Now it's sounding like you are gonna start using it again tomorrow! LB>Certainly within the foreseeable future. Well that's a good sign! LB>HN> LB>The major art dealer in Western Canada contacted me about being LB>HN> LB>my rep - providing I can do very large format prints with inks LB>HN> Tell him to cough up the sheckles to supply you with what you require LB>HN> and you'll pay him back out of the first show. I of course expect a free LB>HN> signed artist's proof for coming up with such a grand scheme, er, um LB>Pay HER back... Ok, her .... LB>At that time, there was only one printer that met even some of the LB>requirements and it was over $150,000 US - the Iris 3047. Even so, LB>it lacked the robust inks. It is still the standard bearer. Yeppers, several companies are making good money printing on them these days. LB>The image files will be huge and a half-gig to a gig of RAM will LB>be needed. Now a meg of ram is only about $2.50 but then it was LB>over $40. A nine gig SCSI hard-drive was over $4,000 and is now LB>about a quarter to a fifth that price, with 23 gig drives for much LB>less than half that price! Graphics workstations have increased LB>in power and dropped to 1/10th the price or less. Still pricey though much more affordable now than three years ago. LB>HN> IDEA yeah, idea! Unless of course you want to donate a camera or two o LB>HN> my user bag. LB>Sorry, Hap! Oh, bother! LB>HN> I can see now that I have completley talked my self out of getting any LB>HN> of the cameras now...oh bother! LB>Sorry, Hap! Oh bother! LB>HN> When I was up shooting flowers this last week, with Jim Cochran, a LB>HN> fellow showed up with a fuji 617...uses 120 film. Looked nice. He LB>HN> wouldn't give it up either . LB>Sorry, Hap! Oh Ratz! LB>HN> LB>I have a superb old Brooks VeriWide with a 47mm SuperAngulon LB>HN> LB>that shoots seven 6 x 10 images on a roll of 120 that does the LB>HN> LB>task for me. The 47mm is roughly the equivalent to an 18mm lens LB>HN> LB>on a 35mm camera. Awesome! A 65mm SuperAngulon would give you LB>HN> LB>HN> I don't suppose I could talk you out of the brooks either eh? LB>Sorry, Hap! Crimeny, you're a tough sell! LB>HN> LB>There is considerable fall-off of light in the corners due to LB>HN> LB>the rules of physics, and one can get a stunningly expensive LB>HN> LB>HN> I have seen shots both with and without the filter, and you're right the LB>HN> fall-off does lend a certain something to the shot. LB>I have never lusted for the filter. I quite like the look. I certainly agree! LB>HN> I can see now I have no chance of scamming this one from you either . LB>Sorry, Hap! LB>;-} LB>larry! Call my a cynic, but I don't think you're all that sorry! chat with you soon! hap * SLMR 2.1a * Is frustration a computer oriented disease? --- Maximus 2.02 * Origin: Awakening - Lakewood WA (253)582-5579 HST16/V32b/VFC/V34 (1:138/102) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 137 PHOTOGRAPHY Ref: F5G00078 Date: 04/19/98 From: HAP NEWSOM Time: 12:53am \/To: LARRY BOLCH (Read 0 times) Subj: Re:17mm and the F5 Larry Hello Larry! LB>[Karate shot - take picture, then flinch...] LB>HN> That's the sign of a true photographer...personal safety....right fter LB>HN> you get that shot! LB>I shot if vertically, and it took up most of the first page of LB>the local section! Methinks the editor had fantasies of violence LB>and thus loved it. I turned in a borderless 11 x 14 print rather LB>than the standard 8 x 10. It resulted in the picture running LB>uncropped and very big on the page. Editorially it sounds like the way the shot should be portrayed. LB>HN> I guess I'll have to settle for more ersatz panoramics from the 17mm n LB>HN> the F5 for a bit longer! LB>I would suggest doing some with the 17mm and Royal Gold 25 or LB>Ektar Pro 25 off-tripod for a pretty good simulation of the Fuji LB>or the Brooks. These are very special films. I have used them a LB>good deal for architectural interiors as well. They can take very LB>long exposures without losing speed or changing colour. I have LB>even had people walk through the room and not even show up on LB>the negative during a 20 - 30 second exposure! Even in a small LB>one-hour print they have a very special look. I am sure the F5 LB>must be comfortable for extended exposures - even the F3 seems LB>to handle them well. With long exposures, fast lenses are not LB>a factor, and one can stop down to the sharpest stop. I use the LB>self-timer to trip the shutter so there is no vibration. If I were to use the Extar 25, I'd do it on the F2's, the F5 uses battery power to hold the shutter open and those lithium puppies are pricey! chat with you soon! hap * SLMR 2.1a * I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe --- Maximus 2.02 * Origin: Awakening - Lakewood WA (253)582-5579 HST16/V32b/VFC/V34 (1:138/102) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 137 PHOTOGRAPHY Ref: F5G00079 Date: 04/10/98 From: HAP NEWSOM Time: 10:21pm \/To: MATTHEW KIWALA (Read 0 times) Subj: Mard Gras (Matt) Hello Matt! MK>HN==>I thought a 127 or 135mm lens was normal for 4X5. Are you sure on the MK>HN==>210mm? I've been told that is a short tele for 4X5. MK>Measuring a piece of 4x5, and 'doing the math' I come up with a 'proper' MK>focal length of 157mm. Right in the middle. In my defence, I'll say that MK>most 4x5's are sold to students with a 210mm as a 'normal' lens. The 127 MK>Ektar BTW, was a 'normal' for a lot of the press cameras as they often MK>needed the slight wide angle and they didn't have the bellows draw for a MK>long lens. My 4X5 is a press camera so that may explain why I usually see the 127 & 135 combo's most often. I'm looking for some longer lenses though MK>To be honest, I've never understood the fuss of 'normal'. (lens or MK>otherwise) One uses a lens for the effect one needs. MK>Especially in commercial work. Want the product to look big? Use a wide MK>angle. Want it to look flat? Need things at different distances to look MK>the same size? Use a telephoto. Only own one or two lenses? Hey, makes MK>the decision easier. That's the way I look at it as well! chat with you soon! hap * SLMR 2.1a * "Bother"said Pooh, "I'll take the beans IN my chili today --- Maximus 2.02 * Origin: Awakening - Lakewood WA (253)582-5579 HST16/V32b/VFC/V34 (1:138/102) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 137 PHOTOGRAPHY Ref: F5G00080 Date: 04/16/98 From: MARTIN TAI Time: 12:34pm \/To: BRUCE FEIST (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Comparing Photos -> Hi, Martin; -> -> Martin Tai wrote: -> -> > The standard film used in lens testing is Kodak Technical Pan. -> -> Why? Who sets this standard? Because techical pan resolves 300 lines/mm way above other films; for instance Kodak Gold 400 resolves only 120 lpmm, there is no way it can test high resolution lens. -> -> > You cannot use different film for different lens, as film > -> contributes to unsharpness budget. -> -> I agree that it's a bad idea; my choice was based on pragmatism -> rather than sound experimental technique. On the other hand, a -> camera with a faster film proved sharper with most lenses than one -> with a slower film, which is more likely to be valid -- it may have -> understated the result. -> -> > Get a USAF lens test chart from Edmond Scientifc. -> -> I'll investigate this. -> -> > If you want to use ads, you need to quantitize the sharpness > -> One way to do it is to seek the smallest characters you can see > in -> the print under a loup, then measure the lens of character > then -> convert in to characters per mm on film. -> -> That would be a good thing to do, if I want to make my results more -> precise. -> I'm looking forward to seeing how my Minox does! It all depends upon what film you are using. -> -> Bruce martin --- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5 * Origin: FidoNet: CAP/CANADA Support BBS : 416 287-0234 (1:250/710) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 137 PHOTOGRAPHY Ref: F5G00081 Date: 04/16/98 From: MARTIN TAI Time: 12:44pm \/To: BRUCE FEIST (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Comparing Photos Hi Bruce -> Martin Tai wrote: -> -> > -> kind of scale easily, and street scenes have too much -> variability. > -> > Not when you measure character/mm. -> -> Point well taken. By the way, I tried your suggestion; the result -> was rather low! I seem to be resolving a maximum of about 7-8 -> characters/mm. Actually, it's a bit better than that; that text was -> clear in some of the Leica photos, and it could have been smaller, -> but that's the smallest size in the ad. Of course, this is with There you are. Once you add a little bit measurement into the test, then what you considered "sharp" may be just subjective impression. But still, I think your number is too low. Next time you test try B&H ads in Popular Photography, those adds have different size characters, the smallest is really tiny. I believe you will get higher resolution counts. -> commercially developed mass-market color film, but even so it seems -> out of line with the numbers you used as examples . -> -> > For instance, I have a picture taken with Minox B, Techpan rated -> > at ASA 25, developed in Rodinal Special fine grain developer -> > "ONE WAY STREE" "ONE" measured 1.5mm in a 10 x 12 " -> enlargement > that is 2 char/mm . The enlargement factor was 31 x -> from Minox > 8x11mm film, and the resolution = 62 character/mm on -> film. -> > -> > Which is about twice the resolution of any 35mm lens I tested. -> This isn't really fair comparison, given that by necessity the Minox -> film you used is ultra-sharp; 35mm systems don't need their sharpness -> to be as great per mm of film. As you said in your prior post, you That is right. Minox because its tiny format, must have super sharp lens; one the other end of spectrum, large format camera does not need sharp lens. Another point: if you use 4x6" from 1hr lab, that could be the culprit--- 1 hr lab operators are notoriously lazy to tune sharp their enlargers. You need to find a good lab. -> have to use identical film for the measurement to be valid . What -> were you comparing the Techpan to? I used techpan to test 35mm camera too. -> -> Bruce --- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5 * Origin: FidoNet: CAP/CANADA Support BBS : 416 287-0234 (1:250/710) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 137 PHOTOGRAPHY Ref: F5G00082 Date: 04/15/98 From: RUSS MCMILLEN Time: 10:11pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: RE: Going to London From: Russ McMillen Subject: RE: Going to London On Wednesday, April 15, 1998 8:13 PM, Jonathan Feist [SMTP:jonfeist@javanet.com] wrote: > > > Cheers Mates! > > I'll be heading across the pond for a five-day business trip in merry old > England, outside London, May 5 to 10. Anyone have any ideas for > photo-hunting beyond the usual Buckingham Palace, etc.? I've done much of > that kind of thing, and would prefer something a bit off the beaten path. > I won't have a car, so it will have to be accessible by train. Unless some > shutter-snapping Sassenach adopts me. Shoot, I guess that blows my NW Ontario trip out of the water. Hope you have fun. I have an aunt near Sherwood forest if that helps. Isn't that the land of Scotch Whiskey? Russ M. ------------------------------------------------------- FidoNet PHOTO Conference<->InterNet EMail List To subscribe to the list, send an EMail message to: listserv@wnybbs.net With the words: SUBSCRIBE PHOTO To Unsubscribe: UNSUBSCRIBE PHOTO To post a message to the list, send E-Mail to: photo@wnybbs.net