jeffrey_abelson

Hi J. Moore, no offense taken, but I wish you'd read my post before you make claims on what I know and don't: I've been working as a photo editor for a public relations wire service for almost 10 years - I see what gets "pick up" and what fails. My wife is in advertsing and Marketing: she not only manages accounts but also has her own consulting business of which I partake in brainstorming and ideas. I clearly stated that I also really liked the b/w image and would pass on that particular color shot, but that a more conservative shot might be best to get "them through the door" where you can then wow your clients with all your interesting techniques and styles. I stand by that: do a quick google of wedding photographers and see what they offer on their web sites...I think you'll see that most start off with traditonal shots - even those claiming photojournalistic styles...

 

<a href ="http://www.weddingphotos4u.com/Seattle_wedding_photographer_photography.htm">like this</a> and <a href = "http://www.themanylives.com/">this</a> and <a href="http://www.dubnoffphoto.com/">this</a>. But, as I said before, everyone has to make their own choice...

"really disagree with sticking to the "tried and true." I say get out of the comfort zone, try something different and maybe you can open yourself up to a different cliental."

 

by it's very definition, a wedding is a traditional and conservative cultural event, ritualistic, time-proven, and ceremonial. We're talking about getting them into the door with a marketing photo, not wowwing them with art-house rhetoric: Even tatooed brides celebrating pagen rites will want a nice group portrait or a romantic interlude with the groom. Of course, do as you please, but for marketing and PR, I'd keep it pretty straight....

Using the bracket was the best way to go, and though I made a few mistakes, I was happy with the end result.<div></div>

Hi All, I managed a nice jerry-rig for my canon and Lindahl bracket - it seems just fine - I think I'll go with that and forget the stand - comments?

Hi All:

 

I'm shooting my first baptism today: I'm going all digital (to keep

the costs real low for this low-cost client) - I plan on mounting my

Q-flash X on a light stand for portraits outside the church - and i

spoke to the priest yesterday to find out if flash is ok inside - he

said no problem. i'd like to keep the flash on it's stand for inside

the church, assuming I'll be kept pretty much in one place (I've never

been to a baptism in my life, and only 1-2 church services). I don't

have a bracket for this digital camera, and I HATE on camera flash,

though I can mount my sb-28 (with lumiquest) on the camera if needs be.

 

Comments would be appreciated.

 

Jeffrey

I like the b/w as well - but as marketing goes, I'd use a traditional color shot (though not the one posted): in the 3 years my studio's been open, there's one thing I know for sure: there's photographers and there's clients, and clients see pictures much differently than clients. Stick with the tried and true (though I do like that b/w)

interestingly enough, quantum posts the manuals for their flashheads, and the autoflash is calibrated to either 200 or 400ws depending on the pack. But the manual makes no reference to using the variable power settings of the 200b or 400b.

 

jeffrey

Hi everyone - it's been a while. I have a Norman 200b pack with an

lh3b (old norman autoflash head) and a Q-flash X on the way. When

using autoflash, should the pack be set at 200ws or should I base

power setting on output distance - i.e 50ws, for close subjects, 100ws

for mid distance (based on flash distance guide) and 200 ws for far

subjects (or large groups, etc).

 

This is no problem using digital, because I adjust on the spot with

the histogram, bit I'm concerned about using film.

 

Thanks!

 

Jeffrey

Hi Folks:

 

I got my hands on a Wollensak Graphflex Tele-Optar 15 inch Lens - it

came with a Linhof board that does not fit in my calumet 4x5 (4"x4") -

does anyone know what size copal it might be - or is there a

different standard?

<p>

Jeffrey

<p>

<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?

ViewItem&category=30076&item=3828359285">here's the lens!</a>

Expired Polaroid film is often bad - if the paper is sticking try fresh film -

I think if you want to see some "original" nudes you should look to the work of Irving Penn: not his fashion stuff, but the "private" stuff he did in the 50s - not surprisingly, a golden age in American arts, music and photography - Penn explored the curves of larger women - people at the Met exhibit were often nonplussed, but I loved the work and have tried to explore the nude through that lens...

<p>

<a href="http://www.metmuseum.org/special/se_event.asp?OccurrenceId=%7BB0BA8054-7B4D-11D5-93FC-00902786BF44%7D">Penn at the Met</a>

"Your subjects are backlit and there doesn't appear to be any fill flash. The images were printed/scanned so that you can see the subjects faces, which resulted in the flat contrast. "

 

Dead on the money!

I have 10 inch and 15 inch TeleOptars - one made by Graflex and one

made by Wollensak for Graflex - why would the 15" inch lens and

Shutter be so much larger? The 15" is a real beast while the 10" is

quite small - both are 5.6. I know there's a difference between 250mm

and 380mm, but this difference seems considerable. BTW - the newer

15" is coated and Alphax shutter while the 10inch is uncoated in a

graphlex shutter.

"At that resolution I doubt that you will be able to tell the difference between an enlargement made from a 35mm neg and one from 4x5. "

 

Shoot the same scene with a 4x5 and a 35mm - go scan the negs and make an 8x10 print and then make the same claim - I see detail in my 4x5s (made with an ancient Tele-optar nonetheless) that blow away anything made with 35mm - and I shoot with excellent 35mm lenses (nikon glass). Why people think it's just about enlargement is a mystery to me...

"Here I have a question on how to make this hobby a little economic"

 

hee hee, ha ha!

The difference between 3.5 and 4.5 is 2/3rds of a stop - the slower lens is going to be darker.

I think Dave is spot on here - create the canvas and place your image. I'm wondering, though, if we can see how the crop would devestate an image - can you post the image in mind?

If you're stuck on the 6x6 try the mamiya c330 - interchangable lenses, prisms and a ton of stuff available - and pretty cheap, too. I've used it for portraits and landscapes (55mm for landscapes and the 135 or 180mm for portraits). Since, though, I bought my m645, my c330 just gathers dust - you can always crop square.

"You didn't buy it, did you?"

 

Nope - it didn't seem right... My most recent purchase was a cherry Topcor 210mm 5.6 for $200

"It barely covers 6x6!"

 

I thought it might be for an MF camera - but the ad says it was used for 5x7 negs - how can one tell?

 

Jeffrey

I've never seen one so fast or so cheap...

<p>

<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?

ViewItem&rd=1&item=3829634290&ssPageName=STRK:MEDW:IT">Ebay

auction</a>

Do most architectural photographers shoot with tungsten balanced film? Or do they use daylight balanced film?

Or do they carry both?

 

thanks!

"So if all you want is that big negative then the speed will be fine, but if you really want to explorer lf photography I would save up for a shehao or tachihara."

 

I sold my speed graphic after less than a year to a guy in Japan so I could buy a monorail - The SGs are cool, but without a rotating back it makes tripod use difficult, and while the rangefinder is nice, for mother nature (unless we're talking wild life!), the ground glass is the place you want to compose. The bellows are pretty short so you're limited on the long side- at least on the one I had, to telephoto lenses, and while the hooded back is cool, I still found myself using a dark cloth. I do wish I'd bought a camera with a graflock instead of a spring back, but aside from that (I also wish I'd known better to buy a longer monorail), I never missed my musty ol' speed graphic.

"One thing to bear in mind is that color on film -- "the color space of film" is a better way to say it these days -- is vastly different than it is on the monitor, which is vastly different than ink on paper -- no matter how well calibrated everything is. "

 

Does average color film have a wider gammut than Adobe 1998?

I guess I'm really more concerned with B/W - with color I can easily remove casts and set white balance - i do that stuff for a living and have got pretty good at it - without N/D filters I'll expose one or two negs for sky and the rest for the landscape - which I'll composite if needs be, but for b/w - due to the color sensivity of some b/w films, I'm worried that without certain filters I'll lose detail to haze or pollution that I might not even see! I guess what I'm asking - what filters (outside of warming, ND and polarizer) should a landscape photographer carry along - especially for b/w?

 

jeffrey<div></div>