Sunday, August 17, 2014

A couple more ~4x5 images from the 38mm XL

In the last few weeks I've used the 38mm XL a few more times. I've found that the best usage of it is for a super-wide square image on 4x5 (4x4). I don't shoot 6x6 but if I did, this field of view is like if I shot a 22mm lens or so on a Hasselblad or Rolleiflex, or a 10mm lens on 35mm camera and cropped to 24x24.

Here's a few more images from various places using it:


At the end of the day I don't think it's really useful to shoot on 4x5, unless I'm specifically planning on cropping it to 4x4 or something. For the full 4x5 image the 47mm XL is a better choice. On 6x12 though it's a different story. It pairs nicely with the 58mm XL for wide angles. Also, the 38mm XL is supposedly a 120° lens, just like the 47mm XL, so it stands to reason it isn't actually wider after cropping, unless focusing closely.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Reed Bingham, Rain

Every time I want to go shoot somewhere lately it seems to start raining. Three times this summer I drove to Reed Bingham to shoot and despite weather predictions saying low chance of rain, it started to storm fiercely.

This last time on Sunday I just said to heck with it and went out shooting while it was raining.

I shot some 6x12 with my 38mm XL. I wanted to give it another try - last week I found a shim from a lens on the floor that I apparently dropped when placing a lens on a board. The only lenses I had off their board was the 38mm and my Nikkor 90mm f/8. I put the shim in the 38mm XL but it definitely didn't help. Check out the corner areas:

Okay, so apparently it was for the Nikkor. I hope. Now I have to check that one too. The other problem I think I'm having is the 38mm has to be perfectly aligned to the film plane. I think I'm having a very slight left/right angle to the lens, causing this. I noticed the poor corner performance when I first shot this lens (without the shim) but this is much worse.

Here are some more photos. Most of these were shot while it was still raining but the exposures were up to 15 seconds, so you can't tell anyway, except for the shiny leaves and moving brush.


And finally one more I shot with my 150mm APO Symmar of this big spider, a "golden silk orb weaver:"

Films were Pan F+ and Provia 100F.

Monday, August 4, 2014

St. Marks Summer 2014, and July 4th

I actually took these a few weeks ago but forgot to upload them.

Meagan and I spent the afternoon at St. Marks and saw the sunset. Here's a few images from before the sun started to set:


Later on I pulled out some slide film and we enjoyed the sunset:


 Finally, just a few photos from July 4th, visiting Waycross and enjoying grilling and fireworks:


All of these were taken with my Pentax 67 and either 55mm, 105mm, or 165mm lenses. Films were T-Max 100, Portra 160, Ektar 100, Astia 100F, and Velvia 100F.

Saturday, August 2, 2014

35mm vs. 120 Panoramas

Thursday I took my 6x17 Shen Hao out to Langdale to the same place I was at in my previous post. I wanted to shoot a roll of panoramas with the 90mm f/8 Nikkor to get a feel for the difference in angle of view compared to the 38mm XL with 35mm film like I shot before.

It was as I expected. The panoramas felt a little "cramped" comparatively. the long edge of the shot on 6x17 is about 168mm, compared to 112mm on 6x12. That's a 1.5x longer negative. The vertical height of the 120 negative is 56mm, compared to about 35mm for the entire height of the 135 negative, with sprocket holes - close to the same ratio. Therefore, to "match" the look of the 38mm XL, I need a roughly 57mm lens. The 58mm XL, though, is only rated to 166mm for the image circle, while it needs 176mm approximately to cover the 6x17 format (diagonal).

All this jargon means is that I can't get the same field of view with the 6x17 as I can with the 35mm stuffed into the 6x12 back. Which makes sense - the 58mm XL is rated to 110° while the 38mm XL is rated to 120° (the 47mm XL is rated to 120° but still has the same 166mm coverage, just a wider view).

This is really interesting to me, personally. The connection between focal length, image circle, and field of view (in degrees) is quite fascinating.

That said, I think the 38mm XL image circle isn't fully used for the 35mm panoramas. Cropping the (very slight) vignetting from the 58mm XL on 6x17 actually does probably equal it, or close enough. But the issue there is I can't use the center filter for the 58mm XL without cutting even more image off! So the exposures are uneven. It seems to me that the 38mm XL is the ultimate panorama lens for wide-angle junkies like me.

Of course the 6x17 is a bit easier to work with, not having to finagle the 35mm cartridges into the holder, and certainly has a lot more film real estate, making more detailed and smooth images. But I can actually print the 35x112mm strips in the darkroom from the 6x12, unlike 6x17 since my enlarger can't take that size negative! What a conundrum.

I've written way too much. Here are two 6x17 images from the same location as the last post - check out the similarities if you are interested. Taken with the 90mm f/8 along with a polarizer and ND8 filter so I could get 15-minute exposures, on T-Max 100 rated @64 and developed in Rodinal 1:100 semi-stand for 45 minutes:

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

35mm Panoramas along the Withlacoochee

I shot three rolls last evening using my 38mm XL lens and my 6x12 Horseman back + 35mm rolls. It's quite a fun method of shooting. I shot some of my stock of unperforated Portra 160NC:

As well as some Tri-X and Plus-X stock, developed in Microdol-X 1:3 (I am just testing this developer. It works really nicely with these classic emulsions! Tri-X 400 though is still tough to tame for landscape.):

I also took a number of vertical frames. This viewpoint is pretty interesting but can be a challenge compositionally:

You might notice that last one is a weird double-exposure. Yep, I forgot to wind my film. Doesn't happen often. However, I liked the effect, and I cropped out a portion of the frame to get this interesting abstract: