Re: 4x5 camera suggestions

[boblong@xxxxxxxxxxx (Robert Long)]

On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:42:40 GMT, Vaughan wrote:

|By all rights the image from that lens should have been terrible, but it
|had a certain "glow" (what Bob calls bloom I suspect) that combines with
|nice sharpness to make the image a real charmer. Sharp, yet soft... =
perhaps
|"gentle" might be a better word to describe it, with todays hi-res
|hi-contrast super lenses approaching "brutal" in comparison.

Yes, it certainly sounds as though we're talking about precisely the
same property--though my Ektar wasn't as wide-angle a design as yours
must have been if, like mine, it covered 4x5.  The halo effect
delivered by Kodak's non-antihalation IR film (to get back on topic)
is only superficially similar to the Ektar "bloom," and I don't think
I'd ideally want to have both together.  The sharp, literal--and, yes,
relatively "brutal"--quality of the Optar does a better job of giving
the IR film the sort of image it needs to work with.

Does the 4x5 IR film also lack the antihalation coating?  I see no
particular evidence of halos in my 4x5 negs, but it's so long since I
used 4x5 IR that I don't remember its properties clearly.

Bob Long
(boblong@xxxxxxxxxxx)

------------------------------