Spring again with my SWC/M

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>Here's a shot I took last week.</p><div></div>

[shambrick007]

<p>Nice, very nice.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>Paul. Terrible photo. </p>

<p>Clearly you do not know how to use the SWC/M. But I think that there is a problem with the camera.</p>

<p>Let me help you. Pack up the SWC/M in a nice strong box and ship it to me. I'll look at it to see if there is anything wrong with the camera. Most likely there will be so I will just depose of it for you free of charge, to save you the grief of have to use a shoddy camera. In return I will send you a nice new Diana with a roll of professional film. :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nice picture!!! I will take the SWC/M off your hands if you don't like it any more! :)</p>

 

[User_503771]

<p>Terrific camera, I'm sure. Beautiful photo, too.</p>

<p>Go ahead, rub it in, you lucky dog....</p>

[film rules]

<p>Average</p>

[ws_ho]

<p>Paul,<br>

Do you deliberate left more foreground in the photo? If composition by the view finder, sometimes it is required to raise the camera a little to compensate the error for the viewfinder and the lens, especially for near object. I don't know if there are same problem for other type of view finder.<br>

Sun</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>WS HO, I always want plenty of foreground when shooting with the SWC/M -- it thrives on it! Ben, let's see some of your photos!</p>

[barry_cochran]

<p>"average" If this is average, then average is good! Paul, I think you also have done a very good job with the exposure too for a scene with high contrast. While it is a matter of taste or preference, when I am shooting with color film a scene with shadow like this, I expose only for the part of the scene which is sunlit. Of course, this renders the shadow area pretty much black. While, it might be interesting to see your shot in that way, I am not sure it would be any better than the results you got.</p>

<p>Barry</p>

[film rules]

<p>Paul's film did a good job with the exposure (not Paul) because he had it developed at a lab and probably shot it at the rated ISO. His photos are merely an attempt to justify his camera fetish. Seriously Paul, this is the best you can do with a $3k+ camera? Please!</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>Show us your photos, Ben. And be happy.</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>I do have a "fetish," but it's not for cameras!</p><div></div>

[film rules]

<p>Those are some nice looking feet!</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>A nice shot. It has that SWC-feeling of being a bit far from the subject, but then here it works. The shadow of the tree is a actually a nice foreground.<br>

In general, I only wish that they would have made a small front rise feature to this camera.</p>

[james_brand]

<p>Ben,<br>

My SWC was way less than $3k.</p>

[odama]

<p>I think the alternative Hasselblad with some movements was the ArcBody. A very nice and expensive medium format camera (HBlad ended its production on 2002). When it was available, I liked a lot that camera with the 35 mm f4.5 Rodenstock Apo-Grandagon. But the SWC is still a great performer as we can see by that shot. Congrats Paul,<br>

Jose</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<blockquote>

<p>his is the best you can do with a $3k+ camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only in America do people actually pay $3k+ for this camera...<br>

The Arcbody was indeed a cool concept, however it costs way beyond what I'm willing to pay. Compromises, compromises... It was great to go out with only and SWC. But my shooting habits changed and I then sold it. Still, I do like the square format for superwides.</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>Here's another version of the same scene -- I really enjoy how the SWC can with foregrounds </p><div></div>

[mohir_ali]

<p>Nice shots, Paul...and your scanning looks much improved.</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>Thanks, Mohir: I now have the lab make a disc instead of prints.</p>

[ws_ho]

<p>Paul,<br>

Nice shot!<br>

You showed the potential of the SWC....great d-o-f, well distortion control.<br>

A joyful place for children's play. It's hard to find one in my tiny country.<br>

Rgds.</p>