arlindo_barlera

I'd like just ask if womeone know where I could find/purchase a rear retaining/hood ring for a Canon Rangerinder 50mm f 1.2 lens. I believe it's a big difficult, since this kind of part il seldom broken and it's no longer available today. The mine was lost indoor.

Sorry to post this single question. I neither know what's the morre appropriated forum to do it, because in reality I am not a beginner. Let's go ahead. I have two Wollensak lenses: Graflex Optar 6.8 and Wollensak Raptar 3.5 (Alphax shutter), both of 90mm, and I suppose that both of them are wide angles for the 4x5 size. The Optar seems more modern, but the Raptar is more rapid (3.5). However, the Raptar goes up just to 100 + B + T and the Optar up to 400. The Raptar has not a device to open and close the lens. I have to set it to T (that is side by side with the 100). After exaustive search at the internet and literature I did not finde NO ONE referente to the 3.5 Wollensak Raptar (there are a lot of other 3.5, but not this one). Thus as I intend to sell one of them, I wonder what's the most interesting and useful for my Crown Graphic Special 4x5. In terms of money, I know that the Optar have a better price. Finaly, I seems a little strange to me a wide angle with 3.5 when the most of them are 6.8 (angulon, optar, etc). I know there are a lot of technical features regarding the subject. What about?

FILM AND DIGITAL MIX? In reality I don’t consider myself as a beginer but here is the best choice to place two single questions: 1] can I continue taking photos with my old film cameras and have de next steps digitaly made? I suppose the answer is certainly YES. 2] do the results have the same feeling as film photography or it become a mere digital work, despite the advantages of this tecnology. The word “mere” has not here a depreciative sense. I have a good professional enlarger and a lot of vintage classic film cameras, from 35mm up to 4x5 and acessories and like to use them. On the other hand I wouldn’t like to learn computing to work myself with digital processes. But supplies are more and more scarce and expensive and I have no sufficient space to maintain my b/w darkroom.

After reading a lot on enlarging lenses I have Just two single doubts: 1. My Omega 4x5 enlarger has not wall mount, then the space for a 150mm lens is a bit limited and I must work with the colorhead all the way up. Thus, in technical terms, what’s the disadvantage to use a 135mm instead of a 150mm? 2. I have two vintage Schneider Comparon (135 and 150mm) in pristine conditions and make only B+W enlargements, up to 8x10, just as a hobby. Thus, are there any great difference in result between the Comparons and a better lens (componon-s, rodagon, nikkor) or can I consider myself as sufficiently equipped and avoid expend extra money, since I won’t have a paraphernalia of equipment which I don’t need or even know how to use. P.S – The names Rogonon, Compacton and Nikolon are figurative.

<p>Thank you very much Alan for your nice cooperation.</p>

<p>P.S - to my last post: I did not understand the meaning for "chimping" wrote by Alan Klein. Nor found this word in my Englis dictionaries - Webster, Heritage, Collins.</p>

<p><em>Very useful answers. Thank you for yours clear and objective contribuitions. Before I go any further, let me rectify the beginning of my initial post: “I am <strong>not</strong> yet an adept of digital…” (see my profile).</em><br> <em>Then, as I work mostly with B/W and I own a dozen of old but reliable old cameras in nice conditions – Contax IIa, Rollei SLX, Linhof 6x9, Graflex 4x5, Koni Omega 200 etc, plus a couple of lenses, from 15mm up to 180mm and a good enlarger that hold all the negative sizes (Omega D4) I believe the the best I could do is to remain with film photography, even because I do make photos frequently. Also, to chage to digital I’d must improve my scarce practice with computer works. At the end, I’ change an analogic paraphernalia for a digital one, with no much (or none) improvement of the final result.</em><br> <em>Regrding the “warm” analogic photography I realy prefer this kind of photos. By the way, I read anywhere that the german lenses usually offer warmer images than the Japanese.</em><br> <strong><em>Note to Alan Klein:</em></strong><em> Sure I have to wait in order to see the final result, since there is no way to see anything before it’s done. I suppose you did not understand that I asked on the result just in theory and possibilities. All of us know that even a experienced photographer sometimes have a disastrous result. Even so, thank you for your advertise. </em></p>

<p>I am yet a digital adept, so that I know almost nothing on this matter, despite I use a single digital camera for internet purposes. But I have frequently heard, or read some references at scanned negatives. Then my question is very single: are there any advantage in the final result with this procedure, compared with a digital taken shot. After scanning are the next steps identical? I have a lot of cameras in different negative sizes and perhaps could use this resource.</p>

<p><em><strong></strong></em><br> <strong><em>No discussion here on the advantages of digital and the final result. But I wonder if the digital paraphernalia has the same appeal as have the traditional stuff. With a single digital point and shoot I make the works for internet, but the most of my photos (in reality not so much) are made with film cameras. Despite I am not a collector – just an amateur photographer with some experience, I own around 30 old film cameras – from 35mm up to 4x5 (Contax IIa, Rollei SLX, Koni Omega 200, Linhof 6x9, etc), all of them in nice conditions. It’s a pleasure to look at these extremely well made pieces, even if I don’t use them all the time. I have a little darkroom at home with a good 4x5 enlarger (Omega D4) and make the B/W by myself. Appart of the efficience of digital cameras and lenses, they seem not to have an attractive look.</em></strong></p>

<p><br> <em>I am an advanced amateur photographer. At the present I have a lot o different old film câmeras: Rollei SLX with normal 80mm, Koni Omega Rapid 200, with normal and wide angle lenses, Linhof 6x9, with several lenses, Kiev 60, with 50, 80, 180 and a ...30mm, Graflex 4x5, Nikon N80, Contax...etc. I started, many years ago, with a japanese Neoca with fixed 50mm. However, I believe that my best photos (just a few) were made when I owned just an old Contax IIIa with just one lens, the Sonnar 1:1.5 50mm. (leg zoom) . </em></p>

<p>Let me say, at first, that I am not an adept of digital, so that I apologize for my ignorance. And my doubts aren’t one more step on the saturated question digital x analogic. I suppose that I can take an image with film, develop the it, scan the negatives and print it digitaly. Then, as I like to do largers prints (16 x 20”) I’d like to know if the final result is equivalent, or may be even better than the obtained by the traditional analogic process. My photos usually are captured with medium (6x6 – 6x7cm) or larger format (4x5”). Regarding 35mm, what’s the largest size I can enlarge a scanned negative with aquality equivalente to a negative print. Sure it depends on the quality and performance of the scanner. But I intend to have the digital work made by a commercial laboratory that I know have a professional scanner (imagon). Film photography are becaming difficult for the lack of products and the extremely high cost.</em></p>

<p>I apologize for my poor English! What I'd want to see is that "<em>the space between the front barrel of the lens and the filter is shorter than the lens cap <strong>tickness.</strong></em></p>