what should we be talking about here?

[stephen_poe1]

I want to post a message about the content of the MFD and online discussions of photography in general.

 

<p>

 

All of the name brand loyalty arguments and the �my lens is sharper than your lens9 name calling in reference to 35mm or medium format photography is, in the end, rather silly because if the absolute highest image resolution is the ultimate measurement of perfection in photography, then the Nikon F5 or Leica M6 that cost thousands of dollars will be blown away by the used Rollieflex in good repair that can be had for a mere $400.00 US or so. And the most expensive medium format camera will be in turn blown away by a circa 1950 or 1960 Graphic 4x5 with a circa 1970 lens that can be had for $500.00 US as well. I am not being facetious here; anyone who has ever compared a 4x5 transparencies with a 6x6 or 6x7 using a loupe on a lightbox will know that the larger the film the more the information you get per square inch. Unless your larger format camera lens is a truly awful specimen or is wildly out of adjustment, the bigger film will win the resolution contest every time. I am not suggesting that photographers who have scrimped and saved in order to buy what they thought was the best should feel foolish; but isn9t there a point at which all this pride in the lines per millimeter resolution which one lens or another is capable of becomes a little ridiculous and beside the point?

 

<p>

 

I would like to suggest that our discussions of photography would be a lot more interesting if we spent more time talking and writing about what and why we photograph and what worked for us and why rather than becoming unpaid mercenaries in the marketing wars between German and Japanese manufacturers. As someone who tries to make a living at photography, using the web to figure out how to invest my money in gear I can use or film I should try or solutions to technical problems makes sense, but I become a little dissapointed in the level of discussion when it repeats the babble of marketing directors working for corporations. Hasselblad, Pentax, Leica and all those other guys don9t care if we take pictures or not; they just want us to buy their gear. And every year or so they want to deliver a new machine to the market with new features that will make last year9s model look silly and outdated and have the consumer snap up as many as they can afford. Kodak, Agfa and Fuji don9t care what my pictures look like; they just want me to buy more film. All of these companies spend time and money on R and D not out of an altruistic devotion to their craft or out of a desire to further their customer9s interests, but because they need to compete or die in a market economy. And they compete by creating products and convincing us to buy them.

 

<p>

 

I have used and will continue to use the web for research on photography. For one thing, I find it useful to email people all over the place and ask their opinions before I invest my hard earned cash. Every advertisement always claims that what they are selling is the latest and greatest but the opinion of people out there who are using this stuff in the field is much more valuable to me. I would also like to generate more discussion of photography for photography9s sake rather than photography from the camera or film manufacturer9s viewpoint. So, let me ask you --- what do you like to photograph and how did you get interested in that? How do your photographs relate to your subject and how do they relate to you? What issues are you interested in? These things are a lot more interesting and challenging than my asking what kind of camera you own.

 

<p>

 

I welcome views and opinions from anyone and everyone on this. Interested people are welcome to contact me at stefan@icon-stl.net.

I have an on line portfolio at http://www.icon-stl.net/~stefan

Thanks.

[lightcraftsman]

My background is in photojournalism, and I have a lot of experience shooting on location - sports, folk music festivals, ribbon cuttings, all kinds of fun stuff. After 10 years of shooting what editors asked for I got burned out, sold my cameras and took a two-year sabbatical. Cubicle life got old faster than shooting high school sports in the rain, though, and I'm now back into photography seriously, with an old Busch Pressman.

 

<p>

 

I like to photograph landscapes. This is a natural outgrowth of my interests in photography and backpacking. I know I'll never make a living selling landscape photos, so I built a commerical black-and-white darkroom and make money off other photographers. I give them an excellent product and have no trouble showing customers my techniques. Printing black-and-white is part of the fun, and if one of my customers decides to build a darkroom and process his own film, that's fine with me. There are plenty to go around.

 

<p>

 

I am working to build my business to the point where I can pay off the bills I accumulated building the darkroom, quit my day job and pay the normal bills with my B&W business, combined with the computer work I do at the lab and my wife's income of course.

 

<p>

 

What do I care about? My family, my friends and the environment. Hiking in the mountains and capturing the beauty I see on film brings me peace, and a sense of accomplishment. Watching my images come out in the developing tray isn't so much fun as it is satifying. Taking excellent photos of my family and friends also brings me joy, mainly in the appreciation I get when they see the finished product.

 

<p>

 

I agree the endless obsessing over equipment is tiring. Photo.net has degenerated into a "what film/camera/tripod should I buy?" discussion, except for the occassional thoughful question on technique or vision.

 

<p>

 

This board has always seemed equipment oriented to me, but it also gave me the knowledge to purchase a Yashica Mat 124G last year, and I found an excellent Mamiya C330 system here about seven months ago. I don't want to see the legitimate equipment questions disappear from the forum, but I'd hate to see the sniveling here that keeps me away from the rec.photo discussions.

 

Asking if a Mamiya 7 is a better camera than a Pentax 67 is pointless. They are different systems, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. The photographer is far more important than the equipment.

 

<p>

 

I have found the people who frequent this forum knowledgeable, helpful and polite. Let us hope this continues and this forum remains a bastion of sanity in an increasingly insane world.

[ed___3]

I have a different point of view.

 

<p>

 

OK, I am not a professional, I don't really mind too much how to make a good photo, highlight, low key, sorts of. What I enjoy from photogrpahy is the moment when I press the button, the sound of the shutter excites.

 

<p>

 

I don't mind if my photos look anything good or bad, but I love the hard time changing different kind of cameras - from 35mm snappy to 4x5 view - off and

onto my tripot.

 

<p>

 

OK, I am not a photographer at all, but I enjoy something that the equipments bring.

 

<p>

 

I just want to make a point here : There might be people who enjoy photography in different ways.

If this is not a site only for the professionals, why not let it open to all, and lets share the funs ? Afterall you have all the right to choose what to read, or not read.

 

<p>

 

In my opinion I will be glad to say hello to them as well!

[raymond_tai]

For some one like myself who knows practically nothing about MF, this site and its discussions have been very helpful. If the internet and sites like Photo.net were to exist twenty years ago, maybe I wouldn't have been completely turned off to photography because I was so pee-d off at crummy equipment I bought with months of paper route money. Maybe some newbie is surfing Photo.net right now, got some good advice, pick the right camera for herself, develope respect its possibilities, and off to become the next Cartier-Bresson. Who knows. Sites like these and the fine advice their contributors offer are the best defense against the advertising hype you are so against.

[roy_adkins]

I am a student, finishing a BFA with an emphasis in Photography. You asked what we take pictures of. I try to take pictures of things that mean something to me, or create a certain feeling. I take pictures because it makes me feel good, I like to watch people look at my pictures almost as much as taking them. And I love the darkroom, I loose track of time and feel like hours were only minutes. Just seems like you should do something with your life that makes you happy. Taking pictures makes me happy so thats what I want to do.

 

<p>

 

I was photography editor of the university yearbook for the last two years, I photographed for the school paper. I now work for the local daily news. I've shot a few weddings, an awards banquet and an anniversiary. But what I really like is the Fine Art aspect of photography. I would love to just sell my work. I sold three pieces this past year, that amounts to about 1/10th of what I made from my other photo jobs. This is beginning to make me realistic about what I will probably do with the rest of my life.

 

<p>

 

I am inspired by others' work, right now my main source of inspiration is Jan Saudek. The issues that show up in my artwork depends on what I'm personally dealing with. Most of my images are dark in content. The issues are approached from a liberal point of view. Be easier to just see them, so if you still care http://www2.msstate.edu/~raa1/

 

<p>

 

Stefan, I'm not sure if everyone that has responded is in agreement or not, but I would like to know what everyone else does and thinks in relation to their photography. Your page looks nice (maybe you could make a little larger version of the photos available).

 

<p>

 

Roy Adkins

raa1@ra.msstate.edu

[scott_eaton]

>>These things are a lot more interesting and challenging than my asking what kind of camera you own. <<

 

<p>

 

Speak for yourself. :^)

 

<p>

 

I think I agree with your main gripe, but I'm not sure where we make the jump from technical discussions to religion and maybe your being too hard on this forum. Yeah, I think we need a lot more discourse on shooting techniques and and why we shoot what we do, but I'd rather see forums like this one rather than 90% of the other ilk on the Web devoted to point-n-shoot photographers and their fuzzy, poorly scanned mini-lab prints. It's the lesser of two evils.

 

<p>

 

In general I've found a refreshing *LACK* of partisianship in this forum towards manufacturers. Technically speaking, most photographers here are trying to improve their technique and will gladly dump their brand A equipment for brand B if it gives them the technical edge.

I spent $4,000 on a Mamiya RB67 and I hate it. If I'd paid attention to the threads on this board I'd have gotten the RZ instead. I'd like to save others the mistake. Medium format lenses cost a fortune and IMHO they are not worth it!. As far as I'm concerned no Zeiss, Mamiya, Bronica, Rolly or other medium format lens can touch the L/P mm contrast seperation of a fixed Canon or Nikon lens. That issue needs to be addressed. Hiding behind format size is one of the biggest lies in this industry. Yeah, my 6x7 frames "spank" even my best 35mm images, but the margin could and *SHOULD* be more.

 

<p>

 

As for light table comparisons - so what?. Unless yourcustom printing your own 20x30's or need the raw size of the 4x5 sheet for direct retouch work why bother? Most printing houses are now direct digital to press. You actually like swapping backs and wearing a curtain over your head?

 

<p>

 

>>Nikon F5 or Leica M6 that cost thousands of dollars will be blown away by the used Rollieflex in good repair that can be had for a mere $400.00 US or so<<

 

<p>

 

That's BS. As an ex-photojournalist who worked for a major metropolitan newspaper I'd have to say that 70% of my 35mm work could not be achieved with a hand held "box" like a Rollieflex. How's your 300mm 2.8 working on the Rolly? Same goes for 4x5. 90% of the commercial photogs that I know use 4x5 cameras by virtue of the tilt and swing options, not format size. Many high-tech emulsions *ARE-NOT* available in 4x5 but are available in 120. Sorry, I'll take my clunky 6x7 RB over a "bird feeder on a tripod" any day. <grin>

 

<p>

 

I've recently been shooting some stunning night city shots with a combinantion of unique printing and exposure techniques that I can't have commercially printed fast enough to meet buyer demand. You should see these things. Talk about film noir'. I'd love to talk about it but without the dedicated use of a 6x7 film scanner to upload images there's not much point.

 

<p>

 

Perhaps the forum needs to be split into concurrent subjects similiar to Compuserve's.

 

<p>

 

//scott

[ken_eng]

I have mixed feelings on this topic. I mean, I certainly feel that the "which is better" postings are rather ridiculous, however, there is useful information/opinions from actual users in those postings that do stir up some thought. They may even steer a novice at MF toward the system that would most likely fit their needs, provided that they're intelligent enough to weigh the tradeoffs and make their decision wisely, otherwise they'd be totally confused. The postings that make little sense to me are the ones that put one system to another system that are totally different, and tests that prove one lens' resolution is better than the other when it can't be seen with the naked eye, etc... I mean, who are we photographing for??? People or machines??? It makes me chuckle everytime I meet someone who gets too technical and tests something to death only to find that no one could tell the difference... I could laugh at this because I've been down that path myself. What I've found is that it's a total waste of time... all that counts is the end result... How you got there??? No one cares!

 

<p>

 

>Nikon F5 or Leica M6 that cost thousands of dollars will be blown >away by the used Rollieflex in good repair that can be had for a mere $400.00 US or so

 

<p>

 

Every camera system has it's strengths and weaknesses. I find what Stefan wrote was very ignorant because he only looked at it from the lens/image point of view. Stefan, could you honestly say that you could capture all the unexpected moments in sports, or the stunning upclose images of ferocious animals with your Rollieflex??? LF, MF, and 35mm, as well as other formats, each have there place in photography. That's why there are different formats. As for this forum, I think it should stay the way it is. Everyone is entitled to speak their mind and voice their opinion. This is one of the best run forums I've had the pleasure to take part in. MFD seems to have the bulk of knowledgeable contributors on the web who are only out to improve their technique and help newcomers to MF.

 

<p>

 

OK, so you want to know what and why I photograph? I wouldn't call myself a working pro, although I do make money with photography here and there. I'm a mechanical engineer in real life and got serious with photography about 4 years ago. Before that I was just a casual observer in my brother's darkroom. Since then I've been obsessed. I'm taking courses at the local community college toward a degree. I've found that I love photojournalism. It gives me a thrill to capture a moment that would be otherwise lost forever. Sports photography is my favorite. I've recently gone to MF because I plan to get in on the wedding scene. I do mostly studio work with it now, even though I would be better served with a 35mm or viewcamera. Oh BTW, I do own a Hasselblad, but I didn't get it for the snob appeal... it seems that the snobbery comes from the P67 people claiming they're men for owning it... yeah right! :o) I bought the Hassy because it had the quality and the obsolete proof design that I enjoyed so much as a Nikon user. ... And there you have it folks!

 

<p>

 

Well, I think I've gotten more than my 2 cents in...

 

<p>

 

Ken

[greg_rolfe]

For what it's worth, IMHO - almost any contribution made to this forum has merit. Photography encompasses so much - so much that it takes years of experimentation fraught with pitfalls. Pitfalls are said to be necessary - how else would we gain knowledge and be the wiser. However, in photography, some pitfalls are mistakes - and some can be costly. For those getting into MF, the budget is almost always behind the scenes.

 

<p>

 

The MAIN idea is the sharing of information - whether it may be technique, or the plus and minus of a particular filter usage, or certain film or ideas on specific equipment. This is why this forum is great - the contribution of experiences and wisdom of those individuals who are there.

 

<p>

 

After a few years in MF, I have stored ideas and built my threads of data from contributors' experiences. I have made better

decisions with regard to equipment and technique based on these

varied points of view. Granted, some issues spark volleys - however,

the different viewpoints offer latitude where the 'how to go about

it' matters.

 

<p>

 

For those of us getting into MF - and it's alot to figure on your own, researching the contributions - regardless of the topic, has good

value and experienced advice. Thanks.

 

<p>

 

gr

[stephen_poe1]

Dear readers of the MF Digest

 

<p>

 

Thanks to so many of you for responding to my posting. A few seemed quite insulted that I had stated that some of what is written on the MFD is silly or beside the point. Perhaps I didn9t make myself clear. I don9t want to eliminate or change the forum; I truly think the MFD is one of the best on the net, and, best of all, it is free of charge to anyone with Internet access. These days too much of the web has become someone9s idea for making some cash...and I love the MFD because it is information for free. Thats why I keep coming back.

 

In my posting I wrote:

>>I have used and will continue to use the web for research on photography. For one

thing, I find it useful to email people all over the place and ask their opinions before I

invest my hard earned cash.<<

 

<p>

 

So for those of you who are worried that I am suggesting that equipment discussions should be eliminated, please read my posting again a little more carefully. If you look in the archives you will see both questions and answers on equipment issues signed by me --- I just don9t think that this is the total possible scope of discussion and wanted to use the Forum to express this opinion.

 

<p>

 

This essay I wrote grew out of my thinking about a question that had been asked a while ago by a student who wanted to know what medium format camera would be a good one for street photography. Some people posted that they had good results with this camera or that camera (I posted a suggestion too) but a few of the people posting were getting quite snippy with each other in a disagreement over what features a certain make of camera had. There it was, screenfuls of impassioned discussion over whether the this camera had interchangeable lenses. I think that kind of discussion is silly --- one person was right and one person was wrong but they were both just trying to score points by flaming each other as to who knew more about the specific models of camera a given manufacturer sells. This was a prime example of the kind of discourse that makes me ask ...what should we be talking about here? A quick visit to the manufacturer9s web site could have answered this simple question but these people preferred to argue over it. It is their right to argue over it if that is what they like to do; but it is also my right to say that I think this kind of thing is rather silly. If some find that displeasing, let me remind them that this site is all about the free exchange of ideas and opinions.

 

<p>

 

Many also took exception to my statement that arguments over lens resolution were silly. I have re-read the statement, and, with the exception of a error, stand behind it. The error came in the third sentence of that paragraph:

>> I am not being facetious here; anyone who has ever compared a 4x5 transparencies with a 6x6 or 6x7 using a loupe on a light box will know that the larger the film the more the information you get per square inch. <<

My error is in the last part of the sentence, where I said >>per square inch<< and I apologize for any confusion this may have created--it is a quite serious error and a correction is central to my argument. The sentence should have read:

>> I am not being facetious here; anyone who has ever compared a 4x5 transparency with a 6x6 or 6x7 using a loupe on a light box will know that the larger the film the more the information you get. <<

Because a number of people have e mailed me to express their displeasure with this paragraph, I should explain more by giving a specific example. If we take the latest and most expensive 35mm camera, fit it with the sharpest 50mm lens and load it with 100 ASA slide film and shoot a picture of a tree at 1/125th of a second at f11, then mount a circa 1960 Rollieflex loaded with 100 ASA film on the same tripod which is in the same position and take a picture of the same tree at the same time of day at 1/125 of a second at f11 and compare both films on the light box, your eye will get more information about the way the tree looks on film from the bigger film. If you make an interneg of both chromes and make 16x20 prints from both internegs in which the tree appears to be the same size, the print from the Rollie interneg will have a finer grain structure, more detail in the shadows and highlights and will show more detail than that from the 35mm. If you send the chromes to the printer and tell them to reproduce both pictures on slick magazine type paper so that the tree appears to be the same size in each picture, then you will be able to see more detail in the bark, in the clouds, in the leaves and in the shadow areas of the reproduction of the Rollieflex picture unless you are dealing with a really crappy printer who doesn't know his trade (there are a lot of these) or are printing on really crappy paper. The purpose of this statement was to illustrate that arguments over which lens is better based on measurements or experiments done in the laboratory are rather silly and I don9t think lpmm arguments are, in the end, very useful unless you are comparing the exact same focal length in the exact same format and I feel that while this information can be useful, it does not deserve all the attention people give it. Some have stated that such comparisons are very interesting; I do not agree. I WAS NOT SUGGESTING THAT THOSE WHO ENJOY 35MM SHOULD BE SHOOTING 4X5 OR THAT CARTIER BRESSON WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF WITH A SPEED GRAPHIC RATHER THAN HIS LEICA. In fact, what camera Cartier Bresson chose and why is very germane to what I would like to see a little more discussion of --- he said that the Leica, because of it9s small size and unique construction, became an extension of his eye. He talks about what camera he uses and why, about his interest in the fluid composition, about painting and art, about his photography in relation to his life. I find this kind of information very useful; when I originally read it, it helped me to enjoy his photographs even more. Cartier Bresson does not, however, browbeat others over the lines per millimeter their lenses are capable of rendering.

 

<p>

 

One final thought:

I haven't done a lot of lens testing, but once I shot transparency film in both a Rollieflex E-3 that I had bought for less than $400.00 US and a $2,500 US Hasselblad that I had rented from the local pro shop. At F11 at 1/125th of a second using a very well corrected loupe you could not tell the difference between the films. Since that time, I have sold the Rollie and bought the Hasse -- not because I thought the lens was sharper (because, other than wide open, I don't think it really is) but because I needed the interchanging lenses and backs.

 

<p>

 

I apologize for the sheer length of this posting and promise to make them shorter in the future.

 

<p>

 

enjoy

 

<p>

 

Stefan

 

<p>

 

 

 

[eugene_crumpler]

This is a great forum. I've only been on it a couple of months and have learned a great deal. I've picked up a number of ideas about film processing and have contributed some of my experiences in the same area. I have used all formats in the last 45 years and learned photography stating at the tender age of 13 with a cheap 35mm, an old prewar Rollie and later 2x3 and 4x5 press cameras. I've even worked as a news photographer for a television station while in high school and that experience convinced me to study engineering in college. My hat is off to you guys who can make a decent living with your camera.

he debate rages on about which camera system is best. Miamya, pentax, hassey, rollie, etc have been arround for a long time, so they must appeal to many photographers. I picked a 6x7 system because I had reached the limits of 35mm in producing exhibution (read camera club competition) grade B&W prints. I though about 4x5, but having used it before, decided to stick to roll film. I spent many years trying to get the best, sharpest, grain free prints form my nikons.

I test all of my lenses, and I CAN see a real difference in my prints! I have 1/2 dozen 35mm lenses gathering dust, while only 4 are carried nearly everywhere. A glaring example is a 105mm nikkor F2.5, reputted to be at one time nikon's best. Mine is soft and can't produce a sharp 11x14 with 1/1000 on a 20 lb bogen tripod. Enought discussion about 35mm.

I bought a MF system (brand will remain nameless) and was amazed at the quality of at least one lens. The sharpness of this one lens is comparable to my best mikro-nikor. I carry the results of lens tests in my wallet to be sure that I always have that info at hand.

For my $0.02, this forum should address technical issues primarly, as esthetics are hard to reduce to the written word. Asthetics have to be done in the context of viewing slides and prints under optimum conditions and a web page photo of 2-3 inches in size does not cut it!

I have been judging competions and salons for about 10 years and some people think I am a hard A__.

The most humbling experience I have had in photography was to visit the Nationl Wildlife Federation Offices in DC and having the chance to view 60 some AA prints close up and by myself for about 2 hours(optimum conditions).

[lightcraftsman]

After reflecting on Stefan's question and Gene's response in particular, I have to say I see the merit if the technical questions on this forum. When I found the old mailing list I was in heaven. Finally, knowledgeable, articulate people teaching me the foibles, strengths and merits of various medium format equipment. I would have never bought a Yashica Mat 124G if I hadn't read so many happy owners' posts here, and I'm very glad I bought that camera.

 

<p>

 

The only thing that gets tiresome is when people post the same old questions when the threads already exist in the archives. This is the best photography forum I have found, and it will be even better if people add to existing threads rather than scattering related information into five or six threads.

 

<p>

 

Phil Greenspun is in this for the long haul, and 20 years down the road this forum will be a rich repository of medium format information. The mining will be easier if we keep the veins thick.

[eugene_crumpler]

Some further thoughts on what and why I phototograph;

 

<p>

 

I'm a pure hobbyist so I photograph what I find interesting at the moment. I'm also active in camera club competions and salon, so I am looking for images that have "wow" and will illicit an instant emotional response. I travel so I'm also a travel photographer, looking for exotic images as well as a record of the sights I have seen. I'm an engineer by education and inclination, so chemistry, optics, machines and experimentation are interesting for me. I'm a social person, so photography provides a social outlet for me. I'm interested in my community, so my cameras (and myself) are available to photograph various community events. I'm a judge and have some feel as to what makes a good photograph, so people seek me out and ask my opinion (warm fuzzy's).

 

<p>

 

So my camera provides me with a number of "bennies", not the least of them is that it is something I can do and do fairly well. (My golf handicap is 21 #!* ug).

 

<p>

 

The point of this little musing? As fair as I'm concerned,anything about photogarphy is fair game on this site. It appears to be the best site I've found so far, so let's "keep them cards and letters coming in". And no limits on what is posted within good taste.

[anthony_harrison]

I read Stefan Poag�s posting with great interest and complete

agreement, and I think of the various responses Darron Spohn�s best

represents my reaction. I�m glad Stefan set straight those who seemed

to wilfully misrepresent what he was saying about his Rollei compared

with 35mm - it saved me from having to spring to his defence!

It�s all a matter of degree of course - no-one suggests we should

eliminate technical comparisons, but Stefan was right to point out

that some of the discussions get a bit, well, nerdy in their degree of

technical obsessiveness about resolution or whatever.

Sticking a few films through a camera and examining the results

carefully is surely sufficient to show you if it�s good enough, and

does what you want of it. At the same time, postings like that from

the contributor (sorry, forgot his name) who revealed great expertise

about the construction of the older P67 400mm lens are potentially

very valuable to people like me who might consider buying such an item

some time. I too have learned a great deal from MFD in particular, and

one or two other photo websites/groups, and particularly value the

contacts I�ve made with other photographers whose great expertise and

generosity have provided me with extremely useful information which I

could not have come by otherwise. Thanks to you all.

There seem to be a lot of MFD contributors who are part-time

professionals, and I can just about classify myself this way. I�ve

been keen on photography for most of the past 30 years, and have sold

quite a few pics - mostly as illustrations to articles written for UK

(plus some German, one US publication) sportfishing, shooting and

outdoor periodicals. Currently though, partly for reasons I won�t bore

you with but which involve the accursed British Government�s screwing

up the national teachers� pension scheme, I�m trying to boost my

commercial potential so I can finally quit the day job - and starting

to have some limited success.I know other MFD-ers sell scenics,

landscapes & travel shots, and I�m in the process of selling some to

a magazine, and to local tourism-promotion organisations. I just got

back from southern France where I shot lots with my Fuji GA645, all

Provia and Astia. I should have used more Astia - its lower contrast

suits the light resulting from strong directional sunshine and fairly

clear skies. This Fuji is a camera I�ve rapidly grown very fond of,

great handling and performance. Perhaps oddly, I never use its auto

exposure (prefer my Minolta Spotmeter F) and (in France) mostly used

manual focus: using a DoF program supplied by MFD contributor & guru

Tim Brown, I have a DoF table taped to the camera back, and set the

lens for zones of sharp focus. DoF is comparatively limited with the

60mm, and f11 / f16 are necessary, but this technique worked pretty

well in eg market places. And yes, you CAN use polarising filters

quite easily with a rangefinder camera�

Sorry for this excessively long essay - I�ll stop now. Regards - Tony.

[eric___1]

I tend to agree to Ed's posting that as long as there are people enjoying anything from photography, that's good enough.

 

 

 

I have encountered lot of people who take photography as a hobby and their gadgets as toys to play with. I have even seen members of photo clubs who will gather every weekend to compare lens resolution on 16x20 or even smaller papers. Discussions like Hassy vs Contax, Nikon Vs Canon, or Bronica Vs Mamiya etc, are always evergreen that can bring no less funs than the Superbowl final. Stefan if you had witnessed these you would have understood the attraction or magic of photography does not always relate to good techniques or professionalism that you would only have seen.

[erik_a._flickinger1]

Now this is what I call a thread!

I have spent upwards of 2 years researching what medium format "system" would best suit my needs. I had Nikon fM2's,F2's,F3's,F4's,N90's You name it, and all the big glass too.I also noticed that I was getting pretty good,high key portraits,B&W landscapes, you name it.It must be in my genes My grandfather was a pro photographer and built a very successful studio, which passed to my uncle whose skills suffered in comparison yet was truly a great salesman.My cousin took over on my uncles untimely death and ran the company out of business in a couple of years. Anyway sorry for the aside.

Noticed that to me the structure of my photopraphs was without fault but that grain was really bugging me. I could see the next step was med format but which one.Also noticed that I didn't use my telephoto zooms at all any more

Bought every book I could find on medium format,including system books on Hassie etc. One thing I could not find; The experiences of those people who use the equipment.

Then I found the MFD!

The experiences and advice of the contributors to this forum have been invaluable to be.I have found benefit in nearly every arcane discussion of accutance,resolution,format size,manufacturer,whatever.

The threads on resolution are boring to many artistes,The discussions of photo criticism are perhaps tedious to the more techniquely oriented, yet both extremes comprise the fundemental universe of our shared passion.Without the technical we do not have the tools of our art.

Anyway I learned that no "system" suited me.I learned that FOR ME I prefer to shoot handheld that is my WAY.Business and family needs afford me little if any free time,my photography is generally impromtu.I learned that the Pentax 67 needed a tripod,not for me,same with most med.format slr's,

Got rid of most of my 35mm,kept some for Kodachrome or convenience and bought a Rollei 2.8F,and a Fuji 645S.

I guess now is happier ever after time,

Thanks to all who read this far,and espescially to all of those who contribute to the digest

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

keep shooting all,

 

<p>

 

Erik A. Flickinger

[stephen_poe1]

I think that I will cancel the last of the popular photo magazines I receive. I always felt that their features were too pithy but recently I have not been able to stand them; the sight of them decreases my interest in photography. I guess my standards are going up.