There is no such thing as "rear focus" on a field camera. The rear standard holding the groundglass and film holder is fixed in place with exception of tilt functions. The front standard is used to focus on the groundglass by moving forward or rearward depending upon the lens in use. On a 4 X 5 camera a 121mm lens is known as a 5" lens since the distance between the front and rear standards will achieve infinity focus when 5" apart. Focussing closer than infinity requires extending the front standard further than 5" and up to the limit of the attached bellows. Only with a monorail type view camera can both front and rear standards be moved. Contrary to many posts on this topic view cameras, both monorail and field cameras have been made and are available and are still being used with film and digital backs. In Sedona, Arizona less than five years ago I saw a photographer who uses a 5" X 7" view camera and made an image on film by opening the shutter after dark after having composed and focussed at infinity during daylight. He waited for an impending thunderstorm in the distance and captured two lightning strikes that illuminated the red mountain landscape perfectly. He crated a giclee print at 12X enlargement that measured 60" X 84". By comparison a 35mm image would be 12" X 18"- there is an old saying from the film era: there is no substitute for square inches of film!

Pat

Fred Picker of Zone VI Studios out of Newfane Vermont in the 1980's and 90's sold a very similar camera made out of cherry or walnut wood with brass fittings and, indeed, it was called a Zone VI Field Camera and made by a fellow named Wisner who also sold them under his own name. These were 4" X 5" versions and I owned one for about seven years. The lens will give you no clue as to the maker as these units generally did not come with lenses b ut you bought with it one or more "lens boards" that were pre drilled to accept certain lens diameters. I had two lenses a 121mm Schneider Superangulon wide angle and a 210mm Schneider Simmer S which was close to a 65mm on 35mm. These lenses had a very wide image circle to allow one to offset/move either or both the film back and the lens board to correct for perspective (e.g.: convergence on tall buildings) etc. Nowadays all that is done in post processing if desired. They were a lot of fun especially if one had access to a darkroom which I did. As Meatloaf quipped "It was long ago and it was far away and it was so much better than it is today". I don't know if I necessarily essaqrily agree that it was that much "better" b ut it was certainly different and I learned film exposure and processing to a much more detailed degree than I might have otherwise.

Pat

Service Photo in Hamden section of Baltimore.

Try doing an HDR image. Using Manual meter the correct exposure, then shoot two stops more and then two stops less. Using either Photoshop/Lightroom or Aurora HDR combine all three image. This will allow an expanded contrast range.

Pat

Cades Cove has a Mill, Cabins, Church and much pleasant scenery as well as critters.

The term "color blind" is a misnomer and very misleading. I have "defective color vision" which is a more appropriate term. The most common forms are red/brown and blue/green and and manifest in only very subtle differences. The best example I can give is with General Motors cars from 1965-66. They featured paint colors of a pale blue and a turquoise. If I saw the two side by side I could easily distinguish which was which but if I saw only one I could get it wrong. It never affected my ability as a photographer and although it was not my profession I did paid weddings for 35 years with many very satisfied customers including the daughters of some moms that I had done years earlier. Hope that clarifies the unfortunate term "Color Blind".

Pat

There are a number of good ones but I like Think Tank; they are built like a tank but comfortable, sectional with strong velcro dividers and the zippers are made to last but I highly recommend you find a dealer to try several makers out to find what suits you.

The only problem with the hard cases like Pelican and Zero Halliburton is they shout "Steal Me-there is something expensive inside". California outfit Think Tank makes great photo backpacks that are best for the rather heavy gear you list. Plus backpacks are so ubiquitous that they are less likely targets of thieves.

Rather than a monitor calibration (what exactly do you calibrate it to?) I decided to use a local photo lab rather than national services because I can have conversations and we can collaboratively make adjustment. I print large and on a paper/plastic mount that he uses for flush mounted self hanging prints. Before we pull the trigger on that we print a smaller, say 5" X 7" print and then adjust as necessary. Very efficient and always works. I have printed up to 30" X 40" with no issues. Pat

Look closely at the left hand-this was a composite-she was nowhere near that tiger.

I teach photography at a senior center near me and have been struggling with the very powerful but also complex Lightroom/Photoshop in trying to teach it. My excellent local Photo Shop- Service Photo in Baltimore recommended Luminar 4. Tried it and found it much simpler but still powerful enough for most folks. It is a regular purchase (not a subscription model like Lightroom) and you can get it for $59-69.

Seems to me to be

Cliffs of Mohrer and Galway in addition to the other suggestions. If you like oysters Irelands' are the briniest I have ever had

That's true but only a Full Frontal Lobotomy!

I switched early-on from the D810 to the Z7 primarily because of weight and Nikon had a sensible plan for my needs. I had Zeiss primes that with my 810 clocked in at over 25lbs in my backpack and I found that restricted where I could go. By putting Image Stabilization in the body Nikon avoids the redundancy (and weight) of equipping each lens. I currently have the 14-30 F4 and 24-70 F4 and both are the lightest zooms compared to other makers. Body and both lenses are less than 5 lbs total and my fully loaded backpack now comes in under 10 lbs. When they come out I plan to replace the 24-70 with the 24-105 and pick up the 100-400. If they ultimately make a 1.4x converter I will have from 14mm to 560mm coverage with three lenses and hopefully still under 10lbs. That was/is my rationale and as Paul Sager frequently espouses you have to make your own justifications for such changes. Do it for your own reasons not someone else.