william_littman3

Yessss funny when I started fashion photography 35 years ago the kids mothers only cared about their kids photos and the rest were crap lol its humAn nature or lets say American rat race competitiveness lol. Fact is that kind od caring isn't caring but narcissistic selfishness. Truth is nobody cares unless they have a love for photography itself and then the photo has to be loveable. Its not that bad. Why should it be any different?

I think the question is" Should they"? My Ancester Karl peter Mazer was one of the earliest photographers. It was s novelty. I think those who are doing novel things are getting noticed.

It is not worth it to compromise responsiveness for definition as you end with a well defined bad word.Anything great will require fast thinking by the shooter a plan or both. In the absence of that convenience and circumstance rule but so is ultimate satisfaction ruled out.The internet has taught us it is impossible to have concensus when it seems people are equally divided on just about anything. The camera however has to be as responsive as possible. As simplified as possible as if a wire frame. Obviously a Gibson les Paul is better in Paul Mc Cartneys hands and makes a difference because he is willing to. It would be amazing if convenience and ultimate quality could always coexist. We as people are competitive. We hope to do better and if some day a digital camera will be 500 mp some will want more because we take pictures to push our boundaries and not to set them. I can get high quality pictures with a Canon mark 5d but I get my favourite we quality with 4x5 Im optimistic as to the new Hid hassy as the mirror gets in the way.<div></div>

The truth is .2 mm is a significant defocus Grafmatics septums hold the film flat and are spring loaded. As to the enjoyment I agree but there is a difference. User enjoyment on set versus results. Recently one of the younger users of New55 Posted a picture of a girl with the caption; here's a fun shot of(the girl) The girl looked miserable and so did the exposure and so did it all but as hee is a beginner it is not unusual for large format photographers to have fun With the processes at the expense of the fun of the picture itself. One can reload much faster with grafmatic.and sometimes it really makes a difference.

Joe What you say is true. But you dont have to play guitar to listen to music if you have itunes any more than you need large format If yoohave a smart phone and The guitar will only play well if you tune it first and then whatever comes out depends on a willingness. I think that is the make break factor of it all. Schneider website stated double darks had a 4mm play. Take 2 cardboard matches and defocus your camera that much And then stop the lens 3 stops and see if you get equal sharpness. You wont. Double darks work that ineficiently but if you are on a tripod and can Do longer exposures its not a concern to most any more than the oil Leak lines on highways.you just refill more I dont have that luxury. Having the gain of 2 stops from the perfectible parallelism plus no loss from The grafmatics I only have a range of 250 sec at f8. Try that handheld in the shade and your pictures are dark or soft. I keep it simple I either wish to bother or I dont and if im not going to get a worth while Result and have costs I dont want to bother.

Yes its the same thing plus a ch a changing bag so perhaps Atomic x or Fomapan in monobath is as instant as it needs to get? Please explain the use of the low grade positive print of type 55?

Yes you need a jobo to do monobath and loading film to grafmatics requires a changing bag none of which scares me. Yes type 55 was done in daylight but clearing the negatives to be free of ghost images or residue or lint was . quite a gypsy camp Which I didnt mind. I think it is no more work.

<p>in any event what you guys say is right but Im curious as to how a mf point and shoot will aid spontaneity because the mirror sucks. size will increase once they have to when people stop buying middle of the road cameras</p>

<p>Is developing black and white negatives in monobath more or less involved than having to clear and fix type 55 or new 55</p>

I once made a 5mp.scan of a large negative. Was better than a 80 mp scan of a 35mm neg. The capture area adds info despite the low res. The mp will increase

All you say is justified Dan shoot them a note on their site. They can use your expertise.

J Nanian what is fair is fair. If this thread was about a film and its price Was objectable that implies there would have to be a way to do it for less. Right there you have a competition which you have no objections that one of them should prevail. Everything is by degree and all of these discussions imply a choice whivh implies a competitiveness. According to most of the photographers proficient in responsive 4x5 work at wider apertures The Linhof was way more responsive than any other 4x5 until 2000 and then the Littman became slightly more responsive because That is all that is possible. I agree you dont have to care but when you start making accusations just because a competitiveness exists it is a contradiction. New55 or any film'm isnt free and so is the case of a camera. I also dont care if you are willing to spend endless time saying a Graphic is as good as a Linhof. If instead of A Graflex Super D you would have said a Gowlandflex is responsive and an aid to spontaneity that would be true. Btw twice as responsive. Btw My cameras are by now virtualy a hobbie and no longer a business since 2010. I have used a Grafic for more than 30 years and have 1000 customer feedback. Those were the makers and shakers at the time when large format was still the only wsy To obtain high definition images. It is necessary to maintain some integrity which translates into posting some images that substantiates That what you claim is indeed an observation from personal experience instead of throwing in the Towel By hoping the moderators have to bail you out on some some alleged impropriety. It is important to recognize that things evolved. Where have you read me saying everyone should buy my csmera in the last 7 years? I was very upfront as to the synergy of the film and how it relates to my camera as my motivation for my questions. Trust me I shoot a lot more than make cameras. If you can substantiate the position with personal images I have no problem being surprised Despite 30 years of personal experience with the graflexes plus 20 more years assisting the most Proficient. Thank you

100 years thats how long Grandpa's thought his RB Graflex took to set.up a shot then the Super D took less ...only a few years so to speak When we did an evaluation in 1998 it actually took 4-6 seconds .that is circa 400 years in terms of shutter speed considering to stop the action of a bullet in a picture you need 2000 of a sec To stop the action of a.person in a spontaneity shot you need at least 250 sec and you are using a 55_100 asa film? Plus you are hand held and moving yourself? You are correct there are a lot of" too new" people surfing the internet who believe in fairy tales Because there are those who use the internet to whiteout the past and say it was grand double D. Then the spontaneity from the speed grafic was paparazzi style at f16 where the press corps didnt even have To focus.it was pop pop pop. Tell me where do you expect to get f16 plus 250 sec with a film 100 asa or less? Are you saying you spontaneouly shoot only on cloudless summer days at the Outback? and.then there is speed of focus and framing We are talking several seconds at best versus a split second when a split second can be a split secong too long. Finally you take 100.years of images which is millions of images and then the variable that changes is like in a casting One dancer is amazing when you play a tune and the next one sucks. Back in the day that was all it was. Back in the day the difference was always in front of the camera and what the camera could.do fast was very little. Out of millions of images you can get a decent amount of examples and which will mostly be the subject's charisma versus camera responsiveness. Also.out of millions of ce'll phone images you can surely put together a decent collection of extremely high quality images where everything worked. But again this isnt a discussion about cameras but film.+ camera today at a cost you object to versus digital. The rest belongs in a museum -memory lane or the attic.

Frankly Mr Posner I am quite glad I addressed you by your last name as a sign of professional courtesy to your employer which you posted as your credentials. If instead you would have posted as Henry personal then if you identify with using homophobic terms racial inflammatory words and divisionist humor then its up to you but since I started this thread I would much apreciate it if such comments were removed out of respect for your employer. The real question about permissivnes would have to be whether B &H has given you permission to drag their name thru the mud?

I have shown you what is TRUE MAN the camera/the film justified by the pictures they produce If you have done pictures of amazing spontaneity and responsiveness with Those cameras recently please post them. People believe in fairy tales? I believe in god And in photography I believe only in what I see in the form of pictures Thank you