gary_jones2

I'm Interested in a few boxes as well. Count me in. I'll keep an I out for where this thread goes.

As far as information is concerned, Norman McGrath (who is a professional architectural photographer whose work has been published several times over in most of the major magazines) has a book called "Photographing Buildings: Inside and Out". It has a wealth of info. on equipment and technique. For "hands-on" experience I would (and did) find a local Architecural Photographer (one that does it for a living, not a Commercial Photographer that does it as a small portion of their business) and offer my services as an assistant for no or minimal compensation in exchange for knowledge. They may be reluctant to have an assistant that doesn't know what he/she is doing, so you have to convince them that you're a quick learner. On the other hand, it's hard for them to argue with cheap labor. I hope that helps some or at least gets you started. And yes, there will need to be more equipment purchases.

I haven't tried the 80mm XL but if size isn't a problem the 72mm XL Schneider is incredibly sharp and contrasty and has a hugh image circle. It's cirlce is larger than the 80MM and the 75mm Grandagon.

I agree with Tom. In fact, I also purchased the 110XL and the 72XL,

and for the same reasons. However, I didn't get rid of my 90. In

Architectural photography, especially where interiors are concerned,

I've found having as many W.A. lenses as practical is useful for the

differences in perspective relationships as well as the sometimes

confining spaces. For the W.A. end of the spectrum I have the 72mmXL

SA,90mm Grandagon, 110mmXL SS and a 135mm Sironar S. They've given me

a great deal of flexibility. I haven't found any need to go wider

than 72mm though others might.

I purchased a Discovery. All movements are and have always been smooth

and easy. It may be that something is binding that shouldn't. I would

suggest that she take it back to where she purchased it for some

resolve. Or call/email Jeff at Badger Graphic Sales

(www.badgergraphic.com) or the guys at Robert White

(www.robertwhite.co.uk). They may have some insight into the problem

she's encountering. Yes, the front standard is not geared, I use it

for rough focus and the rear for fine focus. It is actually faster to

focus than the F-Line in that you don't have to wind out either or

both standards just for rough focus; an advantage I find useful in

fading light while switching lenses. But, if she can't shove the front

standard out than this advantage isn't achieved.

Have you considered Arca Swiss? I've had the opportunity to use Sinar

and Arca, and for the studio both are excellent. However, in the

field the Arca had the edge. It can be broken down rather easily to

fit in a backpack and is as rugged, if not more than the Sinar. Price

is about the same for both (accessories as well). Sinar may have a

few more accessories (such as the metering mentioned above), but

Arca's line is extensive. I shoot Architecture and Landscape and have

found the Arca not lacking in any way. As you can probably guess, I

opted for the Arca Swiss.

 

<p>

 

Good luck on your choice,

Gary

I'm curious, was there ever any "semi-modern day" equipment made to project 4x5 transparencies, (i.e. slide projector)?

I didn't see it mentioned, but some labs charge extra if "they" have

to remove film from film holders before processing.

 

<p>

 

Good Shooting,

I have a Discovery and I purchased a 30cm telescopic rail (the same

one that is on the Classic. I can now carry it in a backpack, with

the lenses and accessories. And as mentioned, it is an excellent

camera. I use it in the field and it sets up quickly and take-down is

just as quick, and function is flawless.

In your second thread, you said you're focussing to about 18", I

assume this is at infinity. If you're only doing landscape

photography, then what you have now should be sufficient. However,

bellows extension will be an issue if you're going to do close-up or

tabletop photography with the 210mm lens as this requires more

extension than infinity focus. This is less of an issue with shorter

focal length lenses. I did exactly what Jim Bright is suggesting. I

bought the 30cm telescopic rail, which extends to ~45cm(from Robert

White). With the standard 30cm rail replacing one of the telescoping

sections you get a 45cm rail without being extended. Then you can

extend it up to ~60cm (way more than the standard bellows, but if you

buy the long bellows you won't need more rail). One advantage of the

telescopic rail is that the entire camera can shifted onto one

telescoping section (~6" long), then the camera and rail section can

be removed from the rail track and it will fit in a backpack.

To determine if it is a pinhole (and not the shutter sticking), set

the camera up as you normally would for one of your photographs.

Check that the shutter is closed. Insert a film holder and, with the

shutter still closed, pull out the darkslide and leave it out for the

length of time that you would for one of your normal exposures. Re-

insert the darkslide and develope the film. If there is an image on

the film you have a pinhole. I would also, while the camera is set

up, repeat the above procedure 3 times. 1) with a darkcloth or black

card covering the bellows area below the front standard. 2) with a

darkcloth or black card covering the bottom half of the front

standard and lensboard. 3) with a darkcloth or black card covering

the top half. I would only do these last three in an effort to narrow

down the location if I were unable to find the pinhole by the methods

described by the other postings. Please let us know the cause was you

figure it out...everyone loves a mystery...a long as we get the

solution.

I've owned one for two years. It does have a few plastic parts.

However, the areas where they are used are not areas that require high

torque. In fact, none of the adjustments require excessive tightening

and the camera locks down solidly. In regards to the value, as has

been mentioned the SINAR is available at the same price and I believe

it is probably a marginally better camera. However, if you are

interested, my Cambo 45SF is for sale along with many accessories. I

purchased it primarily for Architectural and Interior Design

photography, and since then have gained great interest in landscape

photographic so I purchased a used Arca Swiss camera because it

breaks-down into a smaller and lighter package that will fit into a

backpack; something that the Cambo won't do easily. If you're

interested, give me and email offline.

If you're patient, you may want to check out Schneiders new 400mm/5.6

telly when it comes out. I don't have any more details, I just

spotted it on Robert Whites web site...

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/Information/schneider.htm#LabelLens400.

Maybe Kerry Thalmann will read this and chime-in with a release date,

he seems to have the latest info on the new Scheiders.

Not to discourage the letter campaign, but I fear that what speaks

the loudest to Kodak or any other manufacturer is 'sales volume'.

Kodak may give consideration to your cards, letters and words of woe,

however, if the particular product doesn't have sufficient sales

volume or profit margin, they may choose to invest the monies, spent

to produce said product, in another product or new technology

(Digital?). I was interested doing some B&W Infrared photography,

then I heard Kodak was discontinuing their High Speed Infrared (HSI)

4x5 sheet film, so I purchased a few boxes. What I'm hinting at is,

for those of you who were considering purchasing Readyloads and

haven't, now is the time. Put you money where you want the products

to be. Kodak may perceive this as a 'Product termination hoarding

frenzy', but if the volume is high enough it may make them think twice

(i.e. add B&W to the new single sheet Readyload production).

And those already using and purchasing Readyloads,...absolutely, send

in the cards and letters and talk to the dealers and reps. and voice

the arguments against(And of course, buy more Readyloads).

 

Just a thought,

Gary Jones

(And,no ...I don't work for Kodak or any other film producer)

Bob is correct, however, I'd like to add my 1/2 cents. Although I'm

not a profession, I'm learning Architectural photography from one who

does it for a living. He uses Color Correction and Light Balancing

gel filters behind the lenses with excellent success. Even under a

loupe, the transparencies show virtually no difference in quality. In

keeping with Bob's statements;1) Focus with the filter in place. That

should compensate for the focus shift. 2)Clean dirt, dust,

fingerprints and smudges off of the filter as, hopefully, you have

done with the rear lens element and maybe even the front. As Bob

stated, contamination on the rear element will have greater

degradation than that of the front. I would venture to guess that

anyone desiring the ultimate in image quality isn't taking photographs

with contamination on any of the elements including the filters. I

realize the some location shooting may not have the best of

conditions. Another benefit of having the filters behind the lens is

that it is less likely get dust, dirt and fingerprints because it's

inside the camera. Ultimately you will have to decide for yourself if

the degradation is acceptable to you, so the best advice is to try it

both ways and check the results. Regarding the lens (110 XL), extra,

extra caution should be used mounting filters on the front, the lens

actually sticks out quite a bit and the filter threads are shallow. A

filter that also has shallow threads will touch glass-to-glass. I use

a 67-82mm step-up ring for my polarizer, to avoid vignetting and

glass-to-glass contact.(All other filters are behind the lens) And,

yes the rear filter size is 52mm. Good luck, Gary.

Bob,

 

<p>

 

Price, service and Knowledge are the best I've expirienced so far.

And did I mention "price". A second place I'd check would be Midwest

Photo in Columbus, Ohio ... Large volume of used equip. with good

prices.

 

<p>

 

Gary

I agree with Sean and Dave in their assessment of your problem, and I

believe they are correct in their calculations... however, you may

find this simple (and free I might add) tool useful for compensating

light falloff due to bellows extension. It's call Quick Disk, and it

can be found at this web site...

http://www.salzgeber.at/disc/index.html

I think it will be useful enough to get you in the ballpark in your

exposures.

Good luck!