adam_kingston

<p>Really appreciate the input on this, I was inclined just to take the ND grad set with me on the assumption it wouldn't be too hard to figure out, but this morning I tried using ND2 and ND4 grad filters on a friend's digital without looking TLR and even with a soft gradient it's very difficult to even approximate the correct position. The polarising filter I had some success with if I marked the filter rim as suggested, so I've ordered a 67mm version.<br /><br />This is paid work far from home so I'm going to ditch the grads and shoot Portra 160 instead of Ektar: the increased DR should reduce the need for a grad filter. Bracketing just isn't practical given the 8 frame limitation and costs associated with that - it would mean paying for multiple drum scans also. These rangefinders have suited me perfectly for most of my work but when I take them out of my comfort zone I feel a bit challenged. Keeping it simple is probably the best approach in this case.<br /><br />Many thanks again for the input<br /><br />Adam</p>

<p>Thanks Howard<br /><br />I've been reliably informed that P size holders on the GSW will vignette so I'm going to go bigger, 100mm.<br /><br />I'm inclined to just forget about polarising for the reason you mentioned and the difficulty positioning the filter, more trouble than it's worth.<br /><br />Fair point regarding GNDs but people complain about the strangest things. Do you have any experience using GNDs with rangefinders? Surely you'd know where the top of the filter is so orientation can't be so difficult? Perhaps difficult to get a hard grad level, but soft? I'd love to hear peoples' experience with this. I'd be using tripod when using the GND filters.</p>

<p>Hi all<br /><br />I've searched but was unable to find anything that dealt with all the questions I had on this...<br /><br />I have GW and GSW690 rangefinders but have yet to use any filters other than the UV filters I use in place of a lens cap to protect the lens. I understand that using filters, particularly grads and polarisers, can be a bit of a challenge with a rangefinder for obvious reasons.<br /><br />First question - which system? Would Cokin P with a 67mm adapter be sufficient with the GSW (65mm) or would I need to go bigger i.e. Z-Pro? I don't have budget for Lee or Singh filters. Cokin say P for 28mm+ which I believe should just be sufficient.<br /><br />People complain about having to guess when lining up ND grads but surely if you're using square filters it's relatively easy to determine how to orientate the filter according to the landscape?<br /><br />Polarisers I imagine are going to be more challenging. Primarily I'd be using it to reduce reflection in large bodies of water. In theory I could look through the polariser until I found the correct position then place on the lens in the same orientation but perhaps in the field this just isn't so practical.<br /><br />Sometimes I wish I'd just bought a D800..!<br /><br />Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>I meant "attritional" approach not "additional".</p>

<p>Thanks all for your input, your ideas got me thinking about the best way to approach this. Daniel’s final contribution is in line with my own thoughts having struggling with this for a few weeks. The financial and time commitment people have mentioned have dissuaded me from going the LF route: my feeling is that to complete this project to the standard it deserves I would ideally have already spent a number of years with LF gear and have a well-honed workflow. So I’ve made what I think is a compromise by purchasing a GW670III from a friend, I’ll keep hold of the GSW690III and I’ve also purchased a GX680III with a wide lens and 6x7 mask. I’ll be cropping everything to 4x5 ratio as those dimensions feel most comfortable to my eye, but will use the full 6x9 frame of the GSW for another project I am working on. The heavy, unwieldy GX680 will have sufficient movements for some of the images I have in mind and for the work not requiring movements I have the relatively portable rangefinders. Some people might not agree that those clown cameras are portable but I share David Scott’s enthusiasm for them! I seem to have two very good copies as well, as I understand there’s some variance in lens performance.<br /><br />The Nikons are wonderful cameras but I find with digital it’s too easy to turn to a sort of additional approach. When I’m limited to 8 or 10 frames on a roll I work carefully and I think this approach suits my temperament, as I’m sure LF would if I felt I could make the commitment to it. I might still explore LF again, but there’s too much to lose at the moment. I’m part-funding the project at fairly considerable expense to myself so it’s fair to say that I’m nervous about getting it wrong!<br /><br />So thanks again, it was a great help.<br /><br />Adam</p>

<p>Thanks Steve and Andrew for the heads up on labs, there's a few there I wasn't aware of. Peak and Digitalab have handled some of my 120 stuff in the past, I stopped using them because they didn't look after the negs but it's reassuring that there are still plenty of options out there. I've had good results from Metro in the past but they're very pricey, perhaps because you're paying for the regular replenishment of chemicals that Nick and Rick talk about. I'm pretty resistant to home processing, I live in a two up, two down cottage and we just don't have the space. The wife would go mad.<br /><br />A couple people I've spoken to have suggested GX680 III if I'm happy enough with MF resolution but want (albeit limited) LF movements. I'm aware there's also an adapter for digi backs which might future proof the investment to some extent. I suppose this is the wrong forum to ask if anyone has any experience with the Fuji but it's an intriguing option, the only downside being the weight.</p>

<p>Hi Bob<br /><br />I should have said, I'll be working on this for 3, 4 years.<br /><br />Ellis I agree, that perhaps should be my primary concern. There are very few labs in the UK who process large format C-41 and I don't have the stomach for home processing it.<br /><br />I'm leaning toward the Chamonix because I spent some time with one and was comfortable using it, but I'm open to suggestions.</p>

<p>Hi forum<br /><br />I'm beginning work on a long-term documentary project. My intention was to shoot it on 6x9 (I have Fuji GW/GSW rangefinders), but this project would benefit from a slow, careful approach and 4x5 in theory sounds like a better choice. My only concern is around the availability of sheet film and C-41 processing in the UK, and whether it's viable to begin a long-term project using this format. I attended a talk a few months ago by a well known photographer who works in 8x10 and said he was buying up thousands of dollars of Portra stock because he's concerned they'll cease production in a year or two. Is this paranoia or a genuine concern? Maybe these are questions that can't reasonably be answered?<br /><br />Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. At the moment I'm in two minds - stick with 6x9 (crop to 67 format, not a fan of the 3:2 ratio) or take the plunge, invest in a Chamonix field camera and all the necessary bits and pieces.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Adam</p>