Jump to content

sheldonnalos

Members
  • Posts

    2,069
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

7 Followers

  1. <p>You could cut holes in a dark slide to accomplish this... would just need two different darkslides for top/bottom and then flip them around to get the left/right sides.</p>
  2. <p>I'd say you've got the correct choice already with the Elinchrom Ranger. Great location and action pack. Plus they have gotten very reasonably priced on the used market lately. Elinchrom modifiers are awesome and generally light and location shooting friendly. </p> <p>I'd suggest the Ranger RX Speed AS pack. Get the "A" head if you plan on doing straight action photography, or if you want to mess around with all the electronic trickery hypersync stuff then the "S" head may be the better choice with it's longer duration flash. </p> <p>Do a google search for "Elinchrom Ranger Lithium Battery" and you'll find info on how you can swap out the battery in the Ranger for a Lithium battery and take 5lbs off the weight of the pack, plus get added capacity. Definitely recommend this upgrade as well. </p>
  3. <p>A couple comments....</p> <p>1) Shoot film because you want to shoot film. The process, the aesthetic look, because it's retro, whatever. I like film too.</p> <p>2) Don't shoot film just because you want a super detailed print. If you want that, just stitch two (or more) DSLR frames together. </p> <p>3) If you're going to get a medium format camera, skip the 645 format and go to 6x6 or 6x7 at least. 645 is still small, and is not going to really be any more detailed than a good DSLR. Plus, larger formats have their own aesthetic to them, independent of film vs digital. </p> <p> </p>
  4. <p>Shooting portraits on 8x10 opens up a couple issues that are VERY different than normal photographic rules. The main reason is that shooting a tight portrait on 8x10 approaches "macro" territory. If you frame a photo that is 8x10 inches at the plane of focus (ie. a tight headshot) that is actually going to be a 1:1 macro photo.</p> <p>First, you get a strong effect of changing field of view of the lens as you focus closer. This is referred to as focus breathing in the movie world. Essentially, the closer you focus the narrower your field of view of the lens becomes. This forces you to push the camera backwards from where you would expect it to be, and makes the lens behave as if it were a longer focal length. By the time you reach 1:1 magnification, the lens field of view is cut in half, so a 300mm lens gives a FOV that is like a 600mm lens. This is why you can shoot portraits with a normal lens on 8x10, where as you can't do so with smaller formats without perspective distortion becoming a problem. A quick and dirty rule is that your effective focal length is the same as the amount of total bellows extension.</p> <p>Secondly, don't overlook bellows compensation. If you think you are going to shoot natural light you're also going to lose light to bellows draw. If you stretch the bellows out to a 1:2 magnification you've lost a full stop, and at a tight 1:1 portrait you've lost 2 stops. It makes ambient light shooting tough, and for that reason I mainly used strobes.</p> <p>Third, don't worry about lens coverage. As soon as you start to focus closer than infinity, all the lenses have more than enough coverage.<br> <br />As far as specific lenses, if you prefer a modern copal shutter and want to keep a reasonable aperture speed that pretty much limits you to any of the 300mm or 360mm lenses from Fuji/Nikon/Rodenstock/Schneider. All of them will do very well. I used a Fuji 300mm f/5.6. Other good options would be a 12" or 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar or a Dagor.</p> <p>Here's a couple samples, both shot with a 300mm lens. The first one is with a Dagor, second one Fujinon-L 300mm f/5.6. Both lenses cost around $200.</p> <p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Scan-140319-0001_zpswyjqjrso.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Elise%208x10%20portrait%202_zpskknlec2j.jpg" alt="" /></p>
  5. <p>Gowland pocket 4x5. Not common, but a very compact and lightweight monorail. Also sold under the Calumet brand.</p>
  6. <p>I've owned really nice loupes for ground glass focusing, a 6x sylvestri tilting loupe was probably my favorite for 4x5, very nice and optically excellent. I'm currently shooting 8x10 and my "loupe" is an all plastic 8x slide viewing loupe marked "Canon" that my local photography shop gave me for free. I do have a nicer, heavier 4x Fuji loupe that has a focusing eyepiece but the cheap-o loupe is lighter and simpler, and does the job fine.</p> <p>As long as you can see the ground glass with your loupe, and can discern when the image is in or out of focus as you make adjustments, you're fine. </p>
  7. <p>You've selected one of Elinchrom's best modifiers, with good reason. Check out the smaller "baby" 27.5" deep octa and the Maxilite for other good options. And of course, on the other end of the spectrum there's the EL Octa, if you have the budget for it. All excellent.</p>
  8. <p>I'm using Rodinal to develop 8x10 in a rotary drum, single sheet at a time. Drum holds 300ml of total volume, and I develop at 1:50 so I'm using just 6ml of concentrate per sheet.</p> <p> </p>
  9. <p>It will be fine. I've shot a beat up Hasselbad 150 lens that was far worse than what you describe with no ill effects. You can actually have much worse and it will still work fine. I've done tests where you put a piece of 1/4" by 1/4" paper on the rear element of the lens, blocking the light path. You can't even tell it's there until you stop down.</p> <p>Keep shooting with it.</p>
  10. <p>I had a RZ67 II before, and the prior owner had disassembled the focus screen/fresnel lens and put them back together in the camera backwards. The net result was the camera backfocusing slightly. I didn't notice it until I started doing some wide open fast aperture portrait shooting with the 110 f/2.8 and 150 f/3.5.</p> <p>That's one possibility, although your shot of the mushroom might suggest things are okay with the focus screen position. Might try a critical focus test wide open with the 127 to see if the focus screen and film plane are properly aligned. If they are, then I'd just say don't worry about the infinity issue with the 65, I don't think it will affect photos in normal use. </p>
  11. <p>The best portrait lens is good light and good communication with the subject. VASTLY more important than the lens. </p> <p>Of the two lenses you listed, I like the 85 better. Slightly more flexible focal length that can allow you to work in a bit more environment if you desire, slightly faster aperture is better for lower light/shutter speed or shallower DOF if you want. I doubt you could pick the two apart in terms of sharpness or "look". Macro lenses will work fine for portraiture too, but I'd choose the 85 for the faster focusing speed and faster aperture. </p>
  12. <p>Handheld or tripod? Folding camera or a one piece fixed unit? How wide of a focal length do you want? Wider will be physically more compact.</p>
  13. <p>+1 to John's comment. Buy a flatbed Epson scanner, digitize all your negatives, then sell the scanner. Probably will cost you only $50 total and will give much better results.</p>
  14. <p>No big deal. It's just translucent plastic.</p>
  15. <p>Those aren't even "friendly" prices. Most people can't give away a monorail 4x5 camera. The camera and lens boards are worth $100-150, the lens is worth maybe $50.<br> <br />Ignore what people are "asking" for a camera on ebay, and look at completed sales. There are a bunch of Cambo monorails that have sold for $100 or so. </p>
×
×
  • Create New...