I think some folk use the word 'Diffraction' as the Bogey Man of the photographic world. 'Go over f16 and your children will be childless and your crops will fail' I was out recently with the 5X4 and was talking to another photographer who was passing. When I told him I was at f64 there was a sucking sound and sharp expulsion of air. 'Your photo will be be totally ruined and useless because of diffraction' Its intended use is a contact print in a big Matt I replied, I dont think you will be able to see that.He did't know or was interested in what a contact ptint was. Great vid Steve Cheers Diz
you may not have had the light that day, the trees in 0:41 are absolutely magical! The diffraction differences are indeed minimal, which is to be expected with only one stop difference.
A great video for anyone delving into large format. It really is hard to comprehend the difference in DOF between this and even say 6X7 never mind 35mm! I used to have to photograph drilling rig core samples from vertically above and having the standards totally square was an imperative - the slightest tilt would often render the neg useless.
Thanks for this video. I always wondered how the large format cameras worked and in a couple of minutes, in the beginning of the video, you taught me how you set up a camera and how it works. Thanks!
great video Steve hovering on the buy it or not ? printed intrepid nice instructional vid on all that goes on in the process of film work. Nice to actually see you on saturday atmospheric or what !
I have just equipped my 4x5 with a good lens and plenty of film holders. Now looking at film deal’s. It’s exciting to be able to do anything I want in Photography and take my time totally relaxed.
Very interesting Steve. On the pc the f45 didn't look much, if any different close up but the dof was obviously better as you said - to me I think it's given you the nod that it would be ok to shoot at the smaller aperture. I enjoyed watching you talk us through the process & your knowledge of film and shooting is something I admire. Dank mizzle drizzle this Saturday morning here as I write this - just in time for the lifting of travel restriction in Wales, looks like we are going to let you back over the border from Monday, something I reckon you have been looking forward to? Btw, I have ordered a cheap G5 from MPB, will be looking to get it converted, inspired by your recent video . Atb Al
Thanks Alan, I would also go with the extra DoF unless the shutter speed became slow enough to let the wind affect the foliage. I’m looking forward to getting back over the border and get some proper walks in. It’s been interesting working with my local landscape for the past few weeks but nothing compares with getting up onto the tops. Glad to see you’ve taken the plunge with infrared and and of course you already have a head start given you’ve got a micro 4/3 system. I think it’s the best platform for this sort of photography. Stay safe and I look forward to seeing your new work.
When I was in photography school back in the seventies I worked in the studio with large format cameras. I enjoyed it very much and your videos of working with large format bring back good memories. Lovely image Steve, I prefer the f/32 one, thanks for sharing.
Thanks Henk. I think the 150mm lens performs pretty well stopped down but I still like to stay around f/22 if possible. I’d there is no fine detail in the frame I’d happily go lower.
The greens and subdued light looked awesome -- a little too sunny and toasty here now in Maryland! Sometimes there can be a little too much analysis and planning -- and you just set up the camera, focus and take the shot!
Thanks Aengus. When I go into the forest I just wander around until something catches my eye. I’m never overly worried about getting everything in focus or technically perfect, the composition and lighting are much more important.
Thanks, good aperture comparison. Personally i like it if the background is slightly blurry and gives us a bit less chaotic details and let the foreground separate a little bit more. So yes if wind allows ø22 or ø16 might be better…
That's a very good comparison, thanks for doing this! I think diffraction is mostly a "problem" with images of smaller medium size, like 35mm or possibly 120 film. With 35mm I'm really conscious of not stopping down much lower than f/11. But in, say, 6x7 images I tend not to bother, just because in the end, meaning the final print, it doesn't show almost at all, if I'm not going super large, which I don't even have the means to do. Also, even if HP5 is grainy on 35mm or even 120 film, that doesn't really show with 4x5"+ sizes anymore. Even when fully zoomed in in this video I couldn't really see grain. And when printed from a 4x5 negative you probably wouldn't even know that there is supposed to be more grain!
This is very true Marvin. Diffraction really hurts the smaller formats and less so once above 120 cameras. Wideangles also suffer a lot more and not all lenses are created equal in this respect - some can be stopped right down and still perform extremely well. In terms of film stock it’s true that once you get into the sheet sizes grain effectively ceases to be an issue. For this reason I’m gradually using up my slower FP4+ in 4x5 and 8x10 at which point I’ll only buy HP5+. The extra shutter speed is far more important than the small improvement in resolution and if in red more contrast I can achieve this during development.
@@SteveONions more than you know Steve. I am going to use photography as a therapy for PTSD ( ex forces) and want to do 4x5. The meditative process. Thought it may be too difficult but seeing your videos has made me realise I can do it. Just got to get my gear now and get started. Hope to pass on my experience to other veterans too. really appreciate your hard work in your videos. All the best. Steve ( London )
To echo everyone else, another excellent video. If possible, would you consider talking about how you estimate DOF in your shots? In particular the trade offs you make like shutter speed. You talked a lot about diffraction (which I didn’t typically consider until today), but also subject movement, estimates on distances from focal plane to near/far focus. You’re a very good teacher and I feel like an apprentice accompanying a master watching you work.
Thanks Dan and you’ve made a few good points here. The biggest real world difference between f/32 and f/45 isn’t the subtle effects of diffraction it is the extended shutter speeds. The f/45 exposure was extremely long due to the reciprocity failure and I was very lucky that there wasn’t even a breath of wind that morning. The estimate of depth of field is more a case of guesswork as once stopped down the view on the ground glass is incredibly dim on the type of subject I shoot. I usually pick a point of focus and accept that extremely close and far objects will be somewhat soft. The shot in the video omitted some of the foreground plants which would have made a better composition but I could never have got them in focus so they had to go. In all honesty the shot would have been better with medium format stopped right down to f/22 from a slightly different angle.
Very well-done video - especially liked your example of the effect of tilting the lens on the video - very creative! This is something which has been needed, looking forward to more like this comparing apertures/DOF etc. thank you!
I can't prove this, but my rule is that if the actual diameter of the aperture is 3mm or larger, diffraction is not a problem. Diffraction is caused by photons competing for space around an edge. The larger the diameter, the less edge area. Once the diameter approaches 3mm, there is plenty of room for the photons go get through without competing. So, to calculate the smallest aperture (largest f/number) that won't cause diffraction, divide the focal length by 3. For example, on the Zeiss/Hasselblad 120mm Makro-Planar, dividing 120 by 3 yields 40. The smallest aperture available is 32, so you can stop this lens down all the way with no worries. For the manual Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI lens, divide 50 by 3 and you get not quite 17. So f/16 is no problem. The lens goes down to f/22, so this aperture will cause diffraction.
An interesting approach, I've never thought of it that way. I have noticed a big difference in diffraction depending on the lens itself and not just the focal length, some just perform better than others in this respect. I have owned lenses that don't show any (or minuscule) diffraction like the Zeiss 50mm Distagon CF FLE whilst the same focal length on my Bronica is very poor. I take the approach of testing any lens I frequently use with small apertures and base my decisions on that - I'm more of an empirical results sort of person 🙂
@@SteveONions i recive my lens Today :) i got a Linhof 4x5 bisystem ...its a complex caméra but very simple at the same time one day i Will show you my work with 4x5
I’m definitely going to do something along those lines this year. The hard part is that lenses vary so much in performance and some of the better ones look good at any aperture. In general I find wideangles to suffer the most when stopped down, f/22 is as far as I’ll take my 90mm fujinon f/8 but ideally I’d use f/16 - the difference is noticeable. Longer lenses like my 300mm Nikkor M look great at any aperture but that might be in part to the Tessar design.
Very interesting indeed. Would love to see a comparisons between a f/22 and a f/45 image and also if the images can be sharpened up to match each other. Heck, I should do this myself! Thank you once again, Steve. Your videos are always a pleasure to watch.
Steve I was interested in the Intrepid but many on youtube have reported issues with them, usually related to build quality....I note that you have had yours for a while how are you finding it? t the moment I am using a TLRwhich is serving my film needs but still have a hankering for 4X5
You are right Malcolm, they are fairly basic and the earlier models suffered from quality control issues. I’m not familiar with the latest iterations but the small problems I had with the Mk2 and Mk3 were easily fixed. Light leaks around the bellows joints are easy to identify and a sealant will soon fix that. The later screw based focussing models are far better in design too.
To be honest I kind of like a more limited depth of focus in a scene like this, since it seems to simplify the scene a bit more and draw a bit more attention to the main subject. Personal preference though. Great video as always, massively enjoyed it.
Fair point and I also don’t mind a little drop off on front and rear to be honest. F/45 still couldn’t hold all the objects in the scene so it’s a moot point as to whether the extended shutter speed it incurred was worth it.
great video, i always worry about using the maximum or minimum aperture on a lens, but after watching this i think ill be using f32 on my graflex a lot more. thanks.
Thanks Chris. I’ll stop lenses down as far as I feel comfortable, some can go a long way but others, like my 50mm Zenzanon on the Bronica SQ looks bad at f/22.
Hi Steve, nice work. I agree the difference between say f/16 and f/45 would be really interesting. I think that you should see some difference in contrast at these two settings as well, as the diffraction should reduce contrast slightly. You might fall in to trouble if there is any subject movement though which may disguise the differences in sharpness.
I agree Robert and f/16 is noticeably sharper (and more contrasty than f/45). Subject movement is much more of an issue and I was only able to use such small apertures thanks to the absolute calm of the morning. Another option would be a more capable film in terms of reciprocity failure, Tmax 400 used at 800 (something it needs little or no extra development to achieve) would make a big difference.
Hey Steve, not sure if you'll respond to this but recently I ordered a camera with a fixed apeture of f8.8 and a fixed shutter of 1/30th of a second, any reccommendations on what film speed I should use for it? Its the Ferrania Ibis Primar 85, basically a Holga but with a metal body from what I understand
It will depend a lot on the weather but if it’s a bright day go for XP2 Super (B&W) or Portra 400 (colour). If light levels are really low I’d use HP5+ and push it one or two stops or Porta 800. Hope that helps 🙂
Thanks for the video Steve. Interesting and informative as always. Just purchased Wista 45D instead of an Intrepid because the Wista is built like a tank and I'm clumsy walking in the forest & sea shore and I need something to take a fall with me ...lol. Cheers from Canada..
Steve: Really enjoyed this video blog regarding aperture vs diffraction; a great learning example... It is funny, of my 4x5's, I enjoy the Mark 4 the best (light and easy). I plan to get their new 5x7 that just came out (a great format) . Again, another great post; Have a great weekend!
Thanks Randy. I’ve been pondering the whole 5x7 option for a few years now. On the plus side I think the aspect ratio is all but perfect and details levels are a leg up from 4x5 and not far off 8x10. The negatives for me are stacking up though. 1. I plan on making darkroom prints from my 4x5 soon and have no option for 5x7. 2. I’ve got a stack of 4x5 film holders and 5x7 are less common. 3. My lenses aren’t well suited to 5x7 especially at the wide and. 4. The choice of film is very limited. That said I’ll be very interested in how you get on with the 5x7 as it could be the ideal format to replace the 4x5 and 5x7. Stay safe and keep me posted.
Yeah, the area is almost double and the cost per sheet of film is closer than 8x10..a good compromise; I am done hauling a agfa ansco gray battleship 5x7 camera around
I am curious, I wonder what the f45 image would have looked like after being worked on in Topaz. I have never used that software, but recently seen images that were quite impressive.
It would be a lot better Monty. My friend Robin is working extensively with Gigapixel and has had very impressive results. We’d like to produce a video on this soon.
The f32 shot looked incredibly sharp to me on my MacBook. It appeared so sharp in fact, I can't imagine f16 really being much sharper. I'm sure that looking at prints or using a large monitor the difference would be noticeable but on my MacBook, that f32 shot looked darned sharp to me.
Thanks for this video, it answered two questions for me I didn't know I would like to have answered! ;-) First, how the new Intrepid model compares to the older ones, and by the look of it, it is not only the metal bottom plate, but it seems to have better controls (the knobs at the front look different, too). And then how much diffraction you get when stopping down, and I think it is far less than I would've thought. And if I understand diffraction right, it should be possible to compensate for some lighter diffraction using the unsharp mask with a small size value (separately from later sharpening for overall effect); theoretically it should be possible to get back all details unless diffraction is too heavy, but I think it would need a specialized filter algorithm (that nobody asks for, so it does not exist in Photoshop ;-)).
Thanks Christian. The level of diffraction depends a lot on the individual lens. Typical standard lenses are usually capable of using small apertures with little real impact. Long prime lenses can be stopped right down and I regularly use my 150mm Bronica (and preciously 150mm Zeiss on the Blad) at f/32 with excellent results. Wideangles are a different matter and I don’t like to go down too far if possible, it’s very clear in the scan and not pleasant. The later Intrepid’s are a little heavier but a lot easier to use, no groping around to focus and lock the bed each time. I’ve got my old MkII earmarked for conversion into a permanent enlarger head once Intrepid get round to making me one 🙂
@@SteveONions Converting the old MkII into an enlarger head is a great idea! I know that they have accessories to use their 4x5 as an enlarger, but I didn't know that you could have a permanent conversion, too. I should by an Intrepid 4x5 before the end of this year.
I haven't done a great deal of large format. I don't know that I've ever had a negative, in any film size, where I could see a loss of sharpness between even f/11 and f/32 (not many lenses in MF or 35mm that will stop down further). What a revelation it is to be able to actually *see* the effect of diffraction in the scan -- and you're nowhere near the resolution limit of the film; even my old Epson 4870, with a wet mount, should be able to pull more than a gigapixel out of 4x5 -- if I had any conceivable use for a file that big!
A lot depends on the particular lens in use. I’ve had near perfect lenses like the Zeiss 50mm CF FLE Distagon (Hasselblad) that looked superb at f/22 whilst my equivalent Bronica 50mm shouldn’t be taken below f/16. Similarly my 90mm Fujinon on 4x5 is OK down to f/22 but no further. It’s probably best to perform some testing across the entire range so you know where your personal limits are 🙂
what a long walk into the forest with 15 kilograms on your back. don't you know that anything more than 500 yards from the car isn't photogenic (e. weston). ???😉😉😉 Thank you for a very good and clear video. keep on...
Hey Steve, I’m a photography student and I have a Bronica SQ-A and I was wondering if you know the maximum range of sharpness for the 80mm PS Lens? I tend to think the sharpness range is f8-f13 but I’m not quite sure?
This is a good question. I did some testing a few years ago and concluded that the 80mm PS could be used effectively right down to f/22. There is a very small drop between f/16 and f/22, from f/5.6 to f/16 it all looks very similar and would come down to the quality of the scanner/enlarger lens to show any differences.
That is an unanswerable question. Every lens, even off the same production line is different. You shoot at the F-stop you need to get the desired effect, you don't pick your aperture and work backwards from that. If the manufacturer prints it on the lens, it will give acceptable results if you put in the work. That said, Bronica lenses were never known for their sharpness. They produce pleasing images FOR VIEWING where peak sharpness is an illusion at best. So, if you can't see the detail at arms length in an 8x10, its irrelevant for practical purposes.
Fantastic to watch, but I wouldn't want to do it myself. In my mind I can hear the mosquitos trying to eat you alive. Maybe they are just after me, but whenever I stand still for more then half a minute in the forrest they are coming ;-)
Some of those f/45 soft elements could be due to subject movement caused by the wind. After all, you must have had to increase your time from 35 seconds... to what?
It was a very long exposure Terry but there wasn’t a breath of wind and that tree trunk was very solid. I’d normally run into movement issues above a few seconds but I was very lucky on this morning 🙂
Very good demonstration. One way of combating the effects of diffraction caused by small apertures is to play with the Detail slider in the Sharpening Module of Light room or use Deconvolution Sharpening in PS or any other image processing software. Adobe for some obscure reason chose to call Deconvolution Sharpening , Detail in Lightroom. Nasa uses lens specific Decon sharpening to correct for the peripheral imperfections of the mirror/lens used in the HST imaging systems. I believe that the new generation of AI sharpening sofware have very effective Decon sharpening algorithms but sadly they are very heavy on the CPU and GPU of a desk top computer.
Very good point. The ability to post process large format scans is impressive, and the image can take a lot of manipulation before it starts to look bad. My friend Robin has been working with Topaz GIgapixel and film scans from an Xpan. The results are very impressive with improvements everywhere and no ugly grain artefacts.
@@SteveONions Exactly, Topaz AI sharpening and Denoise seem to be delivering the goods without apparently affecting detail and texture. I have looked into them particularly the AI Denoise which seems to correct for sharpening as well but, unfortunately their system requirements are way beyond the capabilities of my 2012 i5 iMac. I am in my 60s now but strangely getting more impatient and can't make a cup of coffee and drink it each time I use AI Denoise preview update. LOL.
I believe they are quite processor intensive but apparently the latest versions are a lot better. My friend Robin also leaves his settings at default for the de-noise option and says the sharpening it adds is very convincing.
@@SteveONions I am sure that they have improved the software as you stated but, having looked at their site they are recommending i7-7700 with 32 gig and a highend Nvidia with 8 gig of GRAM as optimal. This is one hell of a fast computer. In the olden days Macs used to come with dual processors, I wonder if one of those will fit the bill? I have a feeling that this software analyzes every single pixel and compares it to its neighbours so that it can distinguish between noise and signal. Technology has gone mad. LOL.
lensman57 it’s a good example of where computational photography is taking us. The ability of software to analyse and improve a basic image is very impressive but it is not something I’m very keen on. I’d happily use software to improve an image with flaws but not as a substitute for careful camera handling at the point of capture.
That’s an interesting question and hope Steve has some insight. There appeared there was a small breeze in the video. Do you think a focus stack of the 2 images would create ghosting?
I could definitely have got it all in focus with two shots and stacking. I try to avoid this though as ultimately I want the option to optically enlarge them once my Intrepid Enlarger kit arrives 🙂
*Good video:* It can be interesting to consider the resolution in terms of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem and the laws of Fourier optics. This tells us that we need at least 50 pixels/mm at f/32, and 33 pixels/mm at f/45 to represent the two images at their respective diffraction limits as shown in the video. 4x5 inches is approximately 102x127 mm, so that means each images contains at most about 5100x6375 or 3400x4233 pixels of real spatial information, respectively. Scanning the images at higher resolutions cannot yield more spatial information than this. The two images appear to have both been scanned at a resolution of about 2000 ppi or 78 pixels/mm, which is more than enough to show the effects of diffraction.
Thanks for the detailed analysis. The frames were scanned at 2400dpi and on my screen the differences were there to see albeit it was close. I would have noticed a greater gap with my 90mm which really shouldn’t go below f/22. This is obviously the case with all formats where longer focal lengths suffer less with diffraction. I’d be interested to know why this is if you could help?
Very lens dependent and exceptional lenses are sharp whatever the focal length. Chris Perez did a bunch of tests and found that although the centre resolution is best at f/11, the far corner sharpness is best at f/16 but the peak is often between f/16 and f/22. f/16 2/3 I think seemed the general peak. however for most 'normal' lenses (i.e. not sironar s/ss xl etc)s f/22 was the optimum for centre to corner sharpness and corresponded with a nice f/5.6 35mm equivalent aperture. at f/32 you see a lot of drop off (medium format scan quality maybe 6x7) but still enough for most scans, at f/45 you're down to medium format quality (probably 645 ish). I tend to aim for f/22 if possible but even at just under f/32 there's enough for a decent 30x40" print. web.hevanet.com/cperez/index1.html p.s. The resolution of the 110mm SSXL is amazing. However I bought a cheap (£50), battered 150APO Symmar as a backup when doing battalion photography and I couldn't tell the difference between that and my 150mm Sironar S
p.s. Interestingly, because of a lack of aberration in LF lenses, you actually get more perceived depth of field so f/22 which should look like f/5.6 equivalent in 35mm terms, probably looks like f/8 equivalent. If you want to be a real sneak, take a shot at f/16 and a shot at f/32 and use focus stacking software on them (aperture stacking which works the same way but you can use with tilt etc and things line up better)
Thanks for the information Tim, your experience in this area is invaluable. I’ve found that certain lenses cope extremely well with diffraction while comparable models drop off a cliff. The Zeiss Distagon 50mm CF FLE looked great at f/22 on my Hasselblad whilst the Zenzanon 50mm S should never be used below f/16. I’ve also found certain older designs to require small apertures in order to get decent across the frame results, tessars and simpler Cooke triplets come to mind. Focal length plays a big part too and I’ll happily stop down short telephoto primes on medium format to f/32 if necessary. All the best - Steve PS - I really need to talk to you about some drum scans 🙂
@@SteveONions and @Tim Parkin The analysis that I present is for an ideal lens with no aberrations or flaws. The diffraction-limited resolution depends on the wavelength of light (assumed to be about 550 nm) and the aperture of the lens. It can be expressed as a length at the focal plane in terms of the f-ratio of the lens (f) which is the dimensionless ratio of the focal length divided by the diameter of the aperture. The diameter of the diffraction spot in micrometres produced by a point source is approximately 4f/3 with visible light. The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem requires us to have at least 2x2=4 pixels to represent this spot, without risk of aliasing. Thus, the distance between samples needs to be 2f/3, approximately. So, for example, at f/22 the diffraction limit corresponds to a pixel-pitch of 15 µm at the focal plane, or 68 pixels per mm, or 1723 dpi. In practice, lens aberrations and flaws, which generally increase with decreasing f-ratio, mean that this analysis represents the best possible case; you can never do better than this. It applies to any camera.
F32 ist also how much I usually dare stop down. On the screen I find the diffraction quite anoying. But to be honest, I don't think I will ever ever print so large to have it affect the final print.
They could be Keith but in this instance the subject and camera were totally static. I agree that under normal circumstances the biggest issue with f/45 would be subject or camera movement and it is rare that I can get away with exposures over a minute without running into problems.
@@SteveONions I've always been warned against using say f22 on full frame or smaller format but in reality didn't see much difference. I see people handholding medium format cameras when reviewing cameras and expect sharp results and I just laugh.
Begging your pardon, but 210mm is considered "normal" or the equivalent of a 50mm on a 35mm camera. You keep the rear standard parallel to a vertical subject but you can use the front standard's movement to correct focus. I'd also have used an incident light reading. To check focus and depth of field I'd just shoot a Polaroid. I prefer type 55 because you can loupe the negative and really see what is and isn't sharp. In the case of that tree, depth of field shouldn't be a problem, even at f16-22. Shooting for more depth of field just makes the shot busy and even less interesting. At the very least you need a lens shade or compendium. Large format lenses are famous for flare. Shooting B&W it cries for something like a 25a filter to bump the contrast and make the tree itself stand out. As it is, the image is boring, even trite, and completely uninteresting. The question is, why take the trouble to shoot film, if you're just going to treat it like a digital image anyway? You certainly aren't going to be printing anything from the negative if you are digitally altering the image so?? Why not just shoot with a digital back and save all the trouble? I've done thousands of shots on 4x5 but one of the points of the format is to capture the image complete and perfect (or as perfect as you can make it) on the FILM. btw, Yes, I do have polaroid tucked away in the fridge.
Seems like you’re more interested in how you feel others should work vs. making actual helpful comments. There are a lot of photographers that scan and work in post digitally.
I think some folk use the word 'Diffraction' as the Bogey Man of the photographic world. 'Go over f16 and your children will be childless and your crops will fail' I was out recently with the 5X4 and was talking to another photographer who was passing. When I told him I was at f64 there was a sucking sound and sharp expulsion of air. 'Your photo will be be totally ruined and useless because of diffraction' Its intended use is a contact print in a big Matt I replied, I dont think you will be able to see that.He did't know or was interested in what a contact ptint was.
Great vid Steve
Cheers
Diz
Haha, I’m surprised you can show your face in public Diz, shame on you!!! 😀
you may not have had the light that day, the trees in 0:41 are absolutely magical! The diffraction differences are indeed minimal, which is to be expected with only one stop difference.
That's true Ludwig, had I made the first shot at f/16 it would have been obvious immediately but that's for a future video methinks :)
A great video for anyone delving into large format. It really is hard to comprehend the difference in DOF between this and even say 6X7 never mind 35mm! I used to have to photograph drilling rig core samples from vertically above and having the standards totally square was an imperative - the slightest tilt would often render the neg useless.
Thanks Alan. It must have been quite a challenge to align your camera so precisely, especially if working up close.
Thanks for this video. I always wondered how the large format cameras worked and in a couple of minutes, in the beginning of the video, you taught me how you set up a camera and how it works. Thanks!
Thanks for another great video, Steve. Informative, enjoyable, and entertaining for us types (🤓) as always.
Glad you liked it 😀
great video Steve hovering on the buy it or not ? printed intrepid nice instructional vid on all that goes on in the process of film work. Nice to actually see you on saturday atmospheric or what !
Thank you!
I have just equipped my 4x5 with a good lens and plenty of film holders. Now looking at film deal’s. It’s exciting to be able to do anything I want in Photography and take my time totally relaxed.
Have fun Herbert, it’s a totally different way of working.
Glad to see you using and discussing the 4x5. May we have more please?
You certainly can Jim 🙂
Very interesting Steve. On the pc the f45 didn't look much, if any different close up but the dof was obviously better as you said - to me I think it's given you the nod that it would be ok to shoot at the smaller aperture. I enjoyed watching you talk us through the process & your knowledge of film and shooting is something I admire. Dank mizzle drizzle this Saturday morning here as I write this - just in time for the lifting of travel restriction in Wales, looks like we are going to let you back over the border from Monday, something I reckon you have been looking forward to? Btw, I have ordered a cheap G5 from MPB, will be looking to get it converted, inspired by your recent video . Atb Al
Thanks Alan, I would also go with the extra DoF unless the shutter speed became slow enough to let the wind affect the foliage.
I’m looking forward to getting back over the border and get some proper walks in. It’s been interesting working with my local landscape for the past few weeks but nothing compares with getting up onto the tops.
Glad to see you’ve taken the plunge with infrared and and of course you already have a head start given you’ve got a micro 4/3 system. I think it’s the best platform for this sort of photography.
Stay safe and I look forward to seeing your new work.
Excellent video - thank you
You are welcome!
When I was in photography school back in the seventies I worked in the studio with large format cameras. I enjoyed it very much and your videos of working with large format bring back good memories. Lovely image Steve, I prefer the f/32 one, thanks for sharing.
Thanks Henk. I think the 150mm lens performs pretty well stopped down but I still like to stay around f/22 if possible. I’d there is no fine detail in the frame I’d happily go lower.
I remember reading in Way Beyond Monochrome, they have some charts looking at the USAF 1951 test, and 4x5 peaks at f11 between CA and diffraction.
That’s probably right Bertrand, I need to do a video on this although I may resort to pinning newspapers onto a wall to act as my own chart 🙂
@@SteveONions there's only so far an artificial test can go. I think more ferns or fir boughs would work - might put my box of expired tri-x to use 🤔
Not so, its a function of the individual lens, number and design of the elements, and their coatings or lack there of.
Thanks Steve for such an in depth video on an overlooked subject. It is always a pleasure to view your work. Many thanks.
Thanks Phillip, I plan to do a dedicated video on this subject later this year 👍
The greens and subdued light looked awesome -- a little too sunny and toasty here now in Maryland! Sometimes there can be a little too much analysis and planning -- and you just set up the camera, focus and take the shot!
Thanks Aengus. When I go into the forest I just wander around until something catches my eye. I’m never overly worried about getting everything in focus or technically perfect, the composition and lighting are much more important.
Thanks, good aperture comparison. Personally i like it if the background is slightly blurry and gives us a bit less chaotic details and let the foreground separate a little bit more.
So yes if wind allows ø22 or ø16 might be better…
I agree. I’m usually not too bothered about losing focus on supporting elements in the scene.
Thanks Steve. Could we have more please ? I am thinking of jumping into 4x5. Cheers
They’re on the way 😊
That's a very good comparison, thanks for doing this!
I think diffraction is mostly a "problem" with images of smaller medium size, like 35mm or possibly 120 film. With 35mm I'm really conscious of not stopping down much lower than f/11. But in, say, 6x7 images I tend not to bother, just because in the end, meaning the final print, it doesn't show almost at all, if I'm not going super large, which I don't even have the means to do.
Also, even if HP5 is grainy on 35mm or even 120 film, that doesn't really show with 4x5"+ sizes anymore. Even when fully zoomed in in this video I couldn't really see grain. And when printed from a 4x5 negative you probably wouldn't even know that there is supposed to be more grain!
This is very true Marvin. Diffraction really hurts the smaller formats and less so once above 120 cameras. Wideangles also suffer a lot more and not all lenses are created equal in this respect - some can be stopped right down and still perform extremely well.
In terms of film stock it’s true that once you get into the sheet sizes grain effectively ceases to be an issue. For this reason I’m gradually using up my slower FP4+ in 4x5 and 8x10 at which point I’ll only buy HP5+. The extra shutter speed is far more important than the small improvement in resolution and if in red more contrast I can achieve this during development.
very clear and inspirational..thank you
Glad it was helpful Steve.
@@SteveONions more than you know Steve. I am going to use photography as a therapy for PTSD ( ex forces) and want to do 4x5. The meditative process. Thought it may be too difficult but seeing your videos has made me realise I can do it. Just got to get my gear now and get started. Hope to pass on my experience to other veterans too. really appreciate your hard work in your videos. All the best. Steve ( London )
To echo everyone else, another excellent video. If possible, would you consider talking about how you estimate DOF in your shots? In particular the trade offs you make like shutter speed. You talked a lot about diffraction (which I didn’t typically consider until today), but also subject movement, estimates on distances from focal plane to near/far focus. You’re a very good teacher and I feel like an apprentice accompanying a master watching you work.
Thanks Dan and you’ve made a few good points here. The biggest real world difference between f/32 and f/45 isn’t the subtle effects of diffraction it is the extended shutter speeds. The f/45 exposure was extremely long due to the reciprocity failure and I was very lucky that there wasn’t even a breath of wind that morning. The estimate of depth of field is more a case of guesswork as once stopped down the view on the ground glass is incredibly dim on the type of subject I shoot. I usually pick a point of focus and accept that extremely close and far objects will be somewhat soft. The shot in the video omitted some of the foreground plants which would have made a better composition but I could never have got them in focus so they had to go. In all honesty the shot would have been better with medium format stopped right down to f/22 from a slightly different angle.
Very well-done video - especially liked your example of the effect of tilting the lens on the video - very creative! This is something which has been needed, looking forward to more like this comparing apertures/DOF etc. thank you!
I think I really need to do a full video on the effect of diffraction v sharpness across all my large format lenses. 👍
Great idea with the reading glasses! My 60+ eyes don't work all that well anymore either. I'm off to purchase a pair.
I think I really need my +3’s now Wayne 🙂. I also have a pair of +6’s that I use when spotting darkroom prints but they make me feel seasick!
I can't prove this, but my rule is that if the actual diameter of the aperture is 3mm or larger, diffraction is not a problem. Diffraction is caused by photons competing for space around an edge. The larger the diameter, the less edge area. Once the diameter approaches 3mm, there is plenty of room for the photons go get through without competing. So, to calculate the smallest aperture (largest f/number) that won't cause diffraction, divide the focal length by 3. For example, on the Zeiss/Hasselblad 120mm Makro-Planar, dividing 120 by 3 yields 40. The smallest aperture available is 32, so you can stop this lens down all the way with no worries. For the manual Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI lens, divide 50 by 3 and you get not quite 17. So f/16 is no problem. The lens goes down to f/22, so this aperture will cause diffraction.
An interesting approach, I've never thought of it that way. I have noticed a big difference in diffraction depending on the lens itself and not just the focal length, some just perform better than others in this respect. I have owned lenses that don't show any (or minuscule) diffraction like the Zeiss 50mm Distagon CF FLE whilst the same focal length on my Bronica is very poor. I take the approach of testing any lens I frequently use with small apertures and base my decisions on that - I'm more of an empirical results sort of person 🙂
Enjoyed that. I always think that slight diffraction sometimes is not that bad to get a bigger DOF. Anyway great video.
I agree Erich. I don’t think the differences in diffraction could be seen in print while the extra DoF could.
I watch all of your 4x5 vidéo because i got mine and i want To do photo with 4x5 and your video help my a lot thank you steve
Glad you liked it Yannick.
@@SteveONions i recive my lens Today :) i got a Linhof 4x5 bisystem ...its a complex caméra but very simple at the same time one day i Will show you my work with 4x5
Very professional and interesting as always, Steve. Thankyou
Many thank 🙂
Excellent video Steve. Would like a video on "sweet spots" for different large format lenses, if you could. That would be great. Cheers from Canada.
I’m definitely going to do something along those lines this year. The hard part is that lenses vary so much in performance and some of the better ones look good at any aperture. In general I find wideangles to suffer the most when stopped down, f/22 is as far as I’ll take my 90mm fujinon f/8 but ideally I’d use f/16 - the difference is noticeable. Longer lenses like my 300mm Nikkor M look great at any aperture but that might be in part to the Tessar design.
Thanks Steve! Very interesting video, and very much looking forward to the next one. I've just bought the same Nikon lens, can't wait to try it out
Glad it was helpful Simeon.
Very interesting indeed. Would love to see a comparisons between a f/22 and a f/45 image and also if the images can be sharpened up to match each other. Heck, I should do this myself! Thank you once again, Steve. Your videos are always a pleasure to watch.
If you do the tests make sure you film the results and share them here Rene 😃
@@SteveONions Well, I have been wanting to make some video content on shooting film...so I might just do that!
Steve I was interested in the Intrepid but many on youtube have reported issues with them, usually related to build quality....I note that you have had yours for a while how are you finding it? t the moment I am using a TLRwhich is serving my film needs but still have a hankering for 4X5
You are right Malcolm, they are fairly basic and the earlier models suffered from quality control issues. I’m not familiar with the latest iterations but the small problems I had with the Mk2 and Mk3 were easily fixed. Light leaks around the bellows joints are easy to identify and a sealant will soon fix that. The later screw based focussing models are far better in design too.
To be honest I kind of like a more limited depth of focus in a scene like this, since it seems to simplify the scene a bit more and draw a bit more attention to the main subject. Personal preference though.
Great video as always, massively enjoyed it.
Fair point and I also don’t mind a little drop off on front and rear to be honest. F/45 still couldn’t hold all the objects in the scene so it’s a moot point as to whether the extended shutter speed it incurred was worth it.
Enjoyable as always, thank you.
You’re welcome 😊
great video, i always worry about using the maximum or minimum aperture on a lens, but after watching this i think ill be using f32 on my graflex a lot more. thanks.
Thanks Chris. I’ll stop lenses down as far as I feel comfortable, some can go a long way but others, like my 50mm Zenzanon on the Bronica SQ looks bad at f/22.
Hi Steve, nice work. I agree the difference between say f/16 and f/45 would be really interesting. I think that you should see some difference in contrast at these two settings as well, as the diffraction should reduce contrast slightly. You might fall in to trouble if there is any subject movement though which may disguise the differences in sharpness.
I agree Robert and f/16 is noticeably sharper (and more contrasty than f/45). Subject movement is much more of an issue and I was only able to use such small apertures thanks to the absolute calm of the morning. Another option would be a more capable film in terms of reciprocity failure, Tmax 400 used at 800 (something it needs little or no extra development to achieve) would make a big difference.
Dammit Robert, you’ve just made me realise I need a small supply of Tmax 400 in 4x5 and 8x10 and you know how much that stuff costs!!
Hey Steve, not sure if you'll respond to this but recently I ordered a camera with a fixed apeture of f8.8 and a fixed shutter of 1/30th of a second, any reccommendations on what film speed I should use for it? Its the Ferrania Ibis Primar 85, basically a Holga but with a metal body from what I understand
It will depend a lot on the weather but if it’s a bright day go for XP2 Super (B&W) or Portra 400 (colour). If light levels are really low I’d use HP5+ and push it one or two stops or Porta 800. Hope that helps 🙂
@@SteveONions cheers Steve! I'll give some XP2 a go
Thanks for sharing! Good stuff
Thanks Luis.
Thanks for the video Steve. Interesting and informative as always. Just purchased Wista 45D instead of an Intrepid because the Wista is built like a tank and I'm clumsy walking in the forest & sea shore and I need something to take a fall with me ...lol. Cheers from Canada..
Enjoy the Wista Wayne, I’ve had a couple in the past and they are certainly built to last 🙂
Steve: Really enjoyed this video blog regarding aperture vs diffraction; a great learning example... It is funny, of my 4x5's, I enjoy the Mark 4 the best (light and easy). I plan to get their new 5x7 that just came out (a great format) . Again, another great post; Have a great weekend!
Thanks Randy. I’ve been pondering the whole 5x7 option for a few years now. On the plus side I think the aspect ratio is all but perfect and details levels are a leg up from 4x5 and not far off 8x10.
The negatives for me are stacking up though. 1. I plan on making darkroom prints from my 4x5 soon and have no option for 5x7. 2. I’ve got a stack of 4x5 film holders and 5x7 are less common. 3. My lenses aren’t well suited to 5x7 especially at the wide and. 4. The choice of film is very limited.
That said I’ll be very interested in how you get on with the 5x7 as it could be the ideal format to replace the 4x5 and 5x7.
Stay safe and keep me posted.
Yeah, the area is almost double and the cost per sheet of film is closer than 8x10..a good compromise; I am done hauling a agfa ansco gray battleship 5x7 camera around
I am curious, I wonder what the f45 image would have looked like after being worked on in Topaz. I have never used that software, but recently seen images that were quite impressive.
It would be a lot better Monty. My friend Robin is working extensively with Gigapixel and has had very impressive results. We’d like to produce a video on this soon.
The f32 shot looked incredibly sharp to me on my MacBook. It appeared so sharp in fact, I can't imagine f16 really being much sharper. I'm sure that looking at prints or using a large monitor the difference would be noticeable but on my MacBook, that f32 shot looked darned sharp to me.
It was certainly good enough Phillip but the best results are clearly visible at f/16 or f/22. Contrast improves at those apertures too.
Thanks for this video, it answered two questions for me I didn't know I would like to have answered! ;-) First, how the new Intrepid model compares to the older ones, and by the look of it, it is not only the metal bottom plate, but it seems to have better controls (the knobs at the front look different, too). And then how much diffraction you get when stopping down, and I think it is far less than I would've thought. And if I understand diffraction right, it should be possible to compensate for some lighter diffraction using the unsharp mask with a small size value (separately from later sharpening for overall effect); theoretically it should be possible to get back all details unless diffraction is too heavy, but I think it would need a specialized filter algorithm (that nobody asks for, so it does not exist in Photoshop ;-)).
Thanks Christian. The level of diffraction depends a lot on the individual lens. Typical standard lenses are usually capable of using small apertures with little real impact. Long prime lenses can be stopped right down and I regularly use my 150mm Bronica (and preciously 150mm Zeiss on the Blad) at f/32 with excellent results. Wideangles are a different matter and I don’t like to go down too far if possible, it’s very clear in the scan and not pleasant.
The later Intrepid’s are a little heavier but a lot easier to use, no groping around to focus and lock the bed each time. I’ve got my old MkII earmarked for conversion into a permanent enlarger head once Intrepid get round to making me one 🙂
@@SteveONions Converting the old MkII into an enlarger head is a great idea! I know that they have accessories to use their 4x5 as an enlarger, but I didn't know that you could have a permanent conversion, too. I should by an Intrepid 4x5 before the end of this year.
I hope it proves useable as I didn’t want to buy a De Vere 4x5 given the size and the fact my Meopta Magnifax 4 is ideal for everything up to 6x9.
I haven't done a great deal of large format. I don't know that I've ever had a negative, in any film size, where I could see a loss of sharpness between even f/11 and f/32 (not many lenses in MF or 35mm that will stop down further). What a revelation it is to be able to actually *see* the effect of diffraction in the scan -- and you're nowhere near the resolution limit of the film; even my old Epson 4870, with a wet mount, should be able to pull more than a gigapixel out of 4x5 -- if I had any conceivable use for a file that big!
A lot depends on the particular lens in use. I’ve had near perfect lenses like the Zeiss 50mm CF FLE Distagon (Hasselblad) that looked superb at f/22 whilst my equivalent Bronica 50mm shouldn’t be taken below f/16. Similarly my 90mm Fujinon on 4x5 is OK down to f/22 but no further. It’s probably best to perform some testing across the entire range so you know where your personal limits are 🙂
what a long walk into the forest with 15 kilograms on your back. don't you know that anything more than 500 yards from the car isn't photogenic (e. weston). ???😉😉😉 Thank you for a very good and clear video. keep on...
Hehe, fortunately it wasn't far to walk and the Intrepid is so lightweight I never mind carrying it!
Hey Steve, I’m a photography student and I have a Bronica SQ-A and I was wondering if you know the maximum range of sharpness for the 80mm PS Lens? I tend to think the sharpness range is f8-f13 but I’m not quite sure?
This is a good question. I did some testing a few years ago and concluded that the 80mm PS could be used effectively right down to f/22. There is a very small drop between f/16 and f/22, from f/5.6 to f/16 it all looks very similar and would come down to the quality of the scanner/enlarger lens to show any differences.
That is an unanswerable question. Every lens, even off the same production line is different. You shoot at the F-stop you need to get the desired effect, you don't pick your aperture and work backwards from that. If the manufacturer prints it on the lens, it will give acceptable results if you put in the work. That said, Bronica lenses were never known for their sharpness. They produce pleasing images FOR VIEWING where peak sharpness is an illusion at best. So, if you can't see the detail at arms length in an 8x10, its irrelevant for practical purposes.
Fantastic to watch, but I wouldn't want to do it myself. In my mind I can hear the mosquitos trying to eat you alive. Maybe they are just after me, but whenever I stand still for more then half a minute in the forrest they are coming ;-)
I’ve only been out once to the forest recently due to the insects - I come back full of lumps and bumps 🙁
Steve - My default is f45 generally and only less like your shot if needed.
Can't remember ever using f64
It’s not a bad starting point Stuart. I need smaller ones mainly due to shutter speeds as I tend to work early in the morning and in shaded areas.
Some of those f/45 soft elements could be due to subject movement caused by the wind. After all, you must have had to increase your time from 35 seconds... to what?
It was a very long exposure Terry but there wasn’t a breath of wind and that tree trunk was very solid. I’d normally run into movement issues above a few seconds but I was very lucky on this morning 🙂
Very informative and well articulated as always, Steve! I believe f 16 will be good enough as well.
Thanks Gene, f/16 is my go to large format aperture unless I need more depth of field.
Very good demonstration. One way of combating the effects of diffraction caused by small apertures is to play with the Detail slider in the Sharpening Module of Light room or use Deconvolution Sharpening in PS or any other image processing software. Adobe for some obscure reason chose to call Deconvolution Sharpening , Detail in Lightroom. Nasa uses lens specific Decon sharpening to correct for the peripheral imperfections of the mirror/lens used in the HST imaging systems. I believe that the new generation of AI sharpening sofware have very effective Decon sharpening algorithms but sadly they are very heavy on the CPU and GPU of a desk top computer.
Very good point. The ability to post process large format scans is impressive, and the image can take a lot of manipulation before it starts to look bad. My friend Robin has been working with Topaz GIgapixel and film scans from an Xpan. The results are very impressive with improvements everywhere and no ugly grain artefacts.
@@SteveONions Exactly, Topaz AI sharpening and Denoise seem to be delivering the goods without apparently affecting detail and texture. I have looked into them particularly the AI Denoise which seems to correct for sharpening as well but, unfortunately their system requirements are way beyond the capabilities of my 2012 i5 iMac. I am in my 60s now but strangely getting more impatient and can't make a cup of coffee and drink it each time I use AI Denoise preview update. LOL.
I believe they are quite processor intensive but apparently the latest versions are a lot better. My friend Robin also leaves his settings at default for the de-noise option and says the sharpening it adds is very convincing.
@@SteveONions I am sure that they have improved the software as you stated but, having looked at their site they are recommending i7-7700 with 32 gig and a highend Nvidia with 8 gig of GRAM as optimal. This is one hell of a fast computer. In the olden days Macs used to come with dual processors, I wonder if one of those will fit the bill? I have a feeling that this software analyzes every single pixel and compares it to its neighbours so that it can distinguish between noise and signal. Technology has gone mad. LOL.
lensman57 it’s a good example of where computational photography is taking us. The ability of software to analyse and improve a basic image is very impressive but it is not something I’m very keen on. I’d happily use software to improve an image with flaws but not as a substitute for careful camera handling at the point of capture.
Stupid question maybe but what about focus stacking the two and get the best out of both into one?
That’s an interesting question and hope Steve has some insight. There appeared there was a small breeze in the video. Do you think a focus stack of the 2 images would create ghosting?
I could definitely have got it all in focus with two shots and stacking. I try to avoid this though as ultimately I want the option to optically enlarge them once my Intrepid Enlarger kit arrives 🙂
*Good video:* It can be interesting to consider the resolution in terms of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem and the laws of Fourier optics. This tells us that we need at least 50 pixels/mm at f/32, and 33 pixels/mm at f/45 to represent the two images at their respective diffraction limits as shown in the video. 4x5 inches is approximately 102x127 mm, so that means each images contains at most about 5100x6375 or 3400x4233 pixels of real spatial information, respectively. Scanning the images at higher resolutions cannot yield more spatial information than this. The two images appear to have both been scanned at a resolution of about 2000 ppi or 78 pixels/mm, which is more than enough to show the effects of diffraction.
Thanks for the detailed analysis. The frames were scanned at 2400dpi and on my screen the differences were there to see albeit it was close. I would have noticed a greater gap with my 90mm which really shouldn’t go below f/22.
This is obviously the case with all formats where longer focal lengths suffer less with diffraction. I’d be interested to know why this is if you could help?
Very lens dependent and exceptional lenses are sharp whatever the focal length. Chris Perez did a bunch of tests and found that although the centre resolution is best at f/11, the far corner sharpness is best at f/16 but the peak is often between f/16 and f/22. f/16 2/3 I think seemed the general peak. however for most 'normal' lenses (i.e. not sironar s/ss xl etc)s f/22 was the optimum for centre to corner sharpness and corresponded with a nice f/5.6 35mm equivalent aperture. at f/32 you see a lot of drop off (medium format scan quality maybe 6x7) but still enough for most scans, at f/45 you're down to medium format quality (probably 645 ish). I tend to aim for f/22 if possible but even at just under f/32 there's enough for a decent 30x40" print.
web.hevanet.com/cperez/index1.html
p.s. The resolution of the 110mm SSXL is amazing. However I bought a cheap (£50), battered 150APO Symmar as a backup when doing battalion photography and I couldn't tell the difference between that and my 150mm Sironar S
p.s. Interestingly, because of a lack of aberration in LF lenses, you actually get more perceived depth of field so f/22 which should look like f/5.6 equivalent in 35mm terms, probably looks like f/8 equivalent. If you want to be a real sneak, take a shot at f/16 and a shot at f/32 and use focus stacking software on them (aperture stacking which works the same way but you can use with tilt etc and things line up better)
Thanks for the information Tim, your experience in this area is invaluable. I’ve found that certain lenses cope extremely well with diffraction while comparable models drop off a cliff. The Zeiss Distagon 50mm CF FLE looked great at f/22 on my Hasselblad whilst the Zenzanon 50mm S should never be used below f/16.
I’ve also found certain older designs to require small apertures in order to get decent across the frame results, tessars and simpler Cooke triplets come to mind.
Focal length plays a big part too and I’ll happily stop down short telephoto primes on medium format to f/32 if necessary.
All the best - Steve
PS - I really need to talk to you about some drum scans 🙂
@@SteveONions and @Tim Parkin The analysis that I present is for an ideal lens with no aberrations or flaws. The diffraction-limited resolution depends on the wavelength of light (assumed to be about 550 nm) and the aperture of the lens. It can be expressed as a length at the focal plane in terms of the f-ratio of the lens (f) which is the dimensionless ratio of the focal length divided by the diameter of the aperture. The diameter of the diffraction spot in micrometres produced by a point source is approximately 4f/3 with visible light. The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem requires us to have at least 2x2=4 pixels to represent this spot, without risk of aliasing. Thus, the distance between samples needs to be 2f/3, approximately. So, for example, at f/22 the diffraction limit corresponds to a pixel-pitch of 15 µm at the focal plane, or 68 pixels per mm, or 1723 dpi. In practice, lens aberrations and flaws, which generally increase with decreasing f-ratio, mean that this analysis represents the best possible case; you can never do better than this. It applies to any camera.
F32 ist also how much I usually dare stop down. On the screen I find the diffraction quite anoying. But to be honest, I don't think I will ever ever print so large to have it affect the final print.
I think I’d like to try a full size enlargement of a small section to see if it really shows up - I doubt it will.
Sharpness issues could be due to longer exposure times. And if scanned with flatbed scanner the scan is limiting sharpless.
They could be Keith but in this instance the subject and camera were totally static. I agree that under normal circumstances the biggest issue with f/45 would be subject or camera movement and it is rare that I can get away with exposures over a minute without running into problems.
@@SteveONions I've always been warned against using say f22 on full frame or smaller format but in reality didn't see much difference. I see people handholding medium format cameras when reviewing cameras and expect sharp results and I just laugh.
Keith Wiebe the tripod is definitely the most important tool for obtaining consistently sharp results with film cameras 🙂
Lovely photo Steve, great video as always.
Thanks Antnie.
Begging your pardon, but 210mm is considered "normal" or the equivalent of a 50mm on a 35mm camera. You keep the rear standard parallel to a vertical subject but you can use the front standard's movement to correct focus. I'd also have used an incident light reading. To check focus and depth of field I'd just shoot a Polaroid. I prefer type 55 because you can loupe the negative and really see what is and isn't sharp. In the case of that tree, depth of field shouldn't be a problem, even at f16-22. Shooting for more depth of field just makes the shot busy and even less interesting. At the very least you need a lens shade or compendium. Large format lenses are famous for flare. Shooting B&W it cries for something like a 25a filter to bump the contrast and make the tree itself stand out. As it is, the image is boring, even trite, and completely uninteresting.
The question is, why take the trouble to shoot film, if you're just going to treat it like a digital image anyway? You certainly aren't going to be printing anything from the negative if you are digitally altering the image so?? Why not just shoot with a digital back and save all the trouble? I've done thousands of shots on 4x5 but one of the points of the format is to capture the image complete and perfect (or as perfect as you can make it) on the FILM.
btw, Yes, I do have polaroid tucked away in the fridge.
Seems like you’re more interested in how you feel others should work vs. making actual helpful comments. There are a lot of photographers that scan and work in post digitally.