Speed Graphic used for today's APOD

A time exposure, showing the Moon shrinking as a lunar eclipse proceeds, is
today's APOD. I was suprised to read that a Speed Graphic was used to take the
picture; that was the classic press photography camera long ago.

John Savard

On Friday, 9 October 2015 15:07:56 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
A time exposure, showing the Moon shrinking as a lunar eclipse proceeds, is
today's APOD. I was suprised to read that a Speed Graphic was used to take the
picture; that was the classic press photography camera long ago.

John Savard

4x5 film = high quality, arguably still somewhat better than medium format digitals.

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
A time exposure, showing the Moon shrinking as a lunar eclipse proceeds, is
today's APOD. I was suprised to read that a Speed Graphic was used to take the
picture; that was the classic press photography camera long ago.

John Savard


I know professional photographers that still use 8x10 view cameras because they can control perspective, distortion, and other effects better.

Uncarollo2:
I know professional photographers that still use 8x10 view cameras because
they can control perspective, distortion, and other effects better.

Funny you should mention that. I just bought a Canon 17mm tilt-shift
lens for my full-frame DSLRs. Perhaps not quite the versatility of the
8x10 bellows cameras, but considering the vast difference in
convenience, it's good enough.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/21852587778

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 18:20:47 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 9 October 2015 15:07:56 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
A time exposure, showing the Moon shrinking as a lunar eclipse proceeds, is
today's APOD. I was suprised to read that a Speed Graphic was used to take the
picture; that was the classic press photography camera long ago.

John Savard

4x5 film = high quality, arguably still somewhat better than medium format digitals.

You need to define "quality". The film is lower dynamic range, lower
sensitivity, lower spatial resolution, and introduces a wide range of
surface artifacts. In most respects, it is significantly inferior to
good electronic imaging devices. 4x5 film has approximately the same
spatial information content as a high end 35mm digital sensor.

The main reason people might still choose to use medium or large
format film is because of the features provided by the cameras, not
the film.

On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 22:41:11 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Uncarollo2:
I know professional photographers that still use 8x10 view cameras because
they can control perspective, distortion, and other effects better.

Funny you should mention that. I just bought a Canon 17mm tilt-shift
lens for my full-frame DSLRs. Perhaps not quite the versatility of the
8x10 bellows cameras, but considering the vast difference in
convenience, it's good enough.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/21852587778

I've considered this at times, but I'm unsure if such a lens offers
any significant advantage over making these corrections during
processing. I'm interested in your thoughts and experience in that
matter.

On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 8:25:32 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

You need to define "quality". The film is lower dynamic range, lower
sensitivity, lower spatial resolution, and introduces a wide range of
surface artifacts. In most respects, it is significantly inferior to
good electronic imaging devices. 4x5 film has approximately the same
spatial information content as a high end 35mm digital sensor.

Since the image in question was a long time exposure, I would think that it is
at least possible that film does better than CCDs in retaining exposure for
hours.

I don't think the image involved use of the Scheimpflug rule or any other view
camera goodness.

John Savard

On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 8:28:38 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 22:41:11 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Funny you should mention that. I just bought a Canon 17mm tilt-shift
lens for my full-frame DSLRs. Perhaps not quite the versatility of the
8x10 bellows cameras, but considering the vast difference in
convenience, it's good enough.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/21852587778

I've considered this at times, but I'm unsure if such a lens offers
any significant advantage over making these corrections during
processing. I'm interested in your thoughts and experience in that
matter.

Deconvolution has its limitations. Since lens tilt changes the object distance
at which the image is in focus, post-processing would not be able to match it.

As for lens shift - yes, post-processing should be able to distort the image so
as to get rid of converging verticals. Here, though, doing it with the lens
still does have one slight advantage: since one's final image will be
rectangular, one can use the full sensor area, instead of stretching fewer
pixels. And being able to check _when in the presence of the subject_ that one
is getting the desired image by looking in the viewfinder can be useful as well.

For most people, in the case of lens shift, those slight advantages would not
justify the expense of such a lens. But for rotate, there seems to be no
substitute.

John Savard

In article ,
wrote:

On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 8:28:38 AM UTC-6, wrote:
Davoud:

Funny you should mention that. I just bought a Canon 17mm tilt-shift
lens for my full-frame DSLRs. Perhaps not quite the versatility of the
8x10 bellows cameras, but considering the vast difference in
convenience, it's good enough.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/21852587778

Chris L Peterson:
I've considered this at times, but I'm unsure if such a lens offers
any significant advantage over making these corrections during
processing. I'm interested in your thoughts and experience in that
matter.

Quadibloc:
Deconvolution has its limitations. Since lens tilt changes the object
distance at which the image is in focus, post-processing would not be able
to match it.

As for lens shift - yes, post-processing should be able to distort the image
so as to get rid of converging verticals. Here, though, doing it with the lens
still does have one slight advantage: since one's final image will be
rectangular, one can use the full sensor area, instead of stretching fewer
pixels. And being able to check _when in the presence of the subject_ that
one is getting the desired image by looking in the viewfinder can be useful as
well.

For most people, in the case of lens shift, those slight advantages would not
justify the expense of such a lens. But for rotate, there seems to be no
substitute.

My thoughts--and remember I've had the lens only a few days and have
not experienced or learned all of its nuances--are that for most people
this lens is a nifty toy. It cost a bit over $2k and I am unlikely to
get any of that back from sales. But I can already see this being my
go-to lens for almost all interior photography, maybe almost all
wide-angle photography. I have a Canon 16-35 Ÿ2.8, but I nearly always
use it at 16mm.

If you look at the bottom picture, the "correct" one, you will see that
the edges of the barn actually diverge slightly: overcorrection. Put it
down to inexperience; I hadn't installed my grid focusing screen and I
didn't use Live View. But correcting that in Photoshop is quicker and
easier than correcting the top photo, and causes less distortion and
cropping of the photo than correcting the top image.

Recommendation: neutral. How much are you willing to spend on a lens
that is not suitable for general photography?

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Saturday, 10 October 2015 10:25:32 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 18:20:47 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 9 October 2015 15:07:56 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
A time exposure, showing the Moon shrinking as a lunar eclipse proceeds, is
today's APOD. I was suprised to read that a Speed Graphic was used to take the
picture; that was the classic press photography camera long ago.

John Savard

4x5 film = high quality, arguably still somewhat better than medium format digitals.

You need to define "quality". The film is lower dynamic range, lower
sensitivity, lower spatial resolution, and introduces a wide range of
surface artifacts. In most respects, it is significantly inferior to
good electronic imaging devices. 4x5 film has approximately the same
spatial information content as a high end 35mm digital sensor.

The main reason people might still choose to use medium or large
format film is because of the features provided by the cameras, not
the film.

https://luminous-landscape.com/4x5-film-vs-digital/