jeffrey_abelson

"Two posts containing vulgar language have been deleted."

 

Photography has always been vulgar - it wasn't even considered art until the 40s(?). Some of the earliest examples were nudes.

I've not noticed a problem with fogging.

 

Jeffrey

Considering the latitude of print film, unless you bracket by at least a 1.5-2 stops on either side, it's a waste of a shot (IMHO) - 800 speed film is great, but expect grain and at least some meaure of under saturation - as the others say here, expose print film for the medium to lower tones and slide film for the medium to higher tones. Of course, the prints you got back are irrelevant - just scan your negs and fix them up to your liking - I don't even get back prints - I either process my own b/w or just have color negs done.

If you're trying to sell your images, some publishers want their materials on slides. I like slides because the colors are better and the grain is lower and what you shoot is what you get. I shoot film for portraits because of the latitude, the look and, if shooting b/w I can do my own processing. I like the way slides scan - with negs, the computer either has to use a film profile or you have to color correct yourself due to the nature of the emulsion. I like film when I need to shoot 800 or above - I like slides when I want to shoot below 100 asa.

Hi All:

 

I got my hands on some Tri-X pro (iso 320) filmpacks (used in a

graflex filmpack adaptor). Obviously long expired (but kept frozen),

my source claims that this old emulsion is very silver heavy for

greater exposure & development latitude. I shot 6 films last night,

opened the pack in my changing bag, transfered the film to a film

box and then, after getting the pack reclosed, I removed the paper

backs, got the film into a Doran daylight tank and processed with PMK

for 16 minutes at 70 degrees (based on the PMK recommendation of Tri-

X (EI 260 for 14 minutes: I add two minutes for my faster EI of

320) , 2 minutes stop bath (running tap water at about 75 degrees)

then 6 minutes in TF4, then restained in the used Pyro for 2 minutes

then washed for about 20 minutes. I got a decent neg, but I found it

a bit thin. Assuming that the expired film is okay, should I shoot my

next batch at 260 (or maybe even 200) to over expose? SHould I

process for more time? Any suggestions?

 

Jeffrey

I think I spent about $300 for my black 55mm - it's a great lens, though a drop slow.

I love this place - I was going to ask the same question! I've been using sticks to trigger my recessed 90mm!

 

Jeffrey

"While this sort of control is convenient, it's not absolutely necessary. You can move the lights closer or farther from the subject for finer adjustments than the pack permits."

 

t6hat's not a great solution - as light is moved away it becomes a smaller source thus harder...

I got so invlolved with shooting yesterday that I forgot about the auction and got sniped for about $6! There happened to be a extension board as well (same seller) but I lost that as well. I leanred something very important about large format shooting yesterday: just aim for one setup - I tried two locations but found my work after the second hike sloppy.<div></div>

"Results that are at least as good as many or most of the examples that i see of fancy expensive lighting riggs."

 

Results come from the photographer not the gear. Your photo is nice, though the eyes could use some life with some catch lights perhaps and maybe a bit softening of the shadow.<div></div>

On-camera flash tends to be ugly with skin tones: hot spots, blown highs, washed tones - etc. You can put a stofen or other diffusion device on the gun, or even a softbox. My main use of my sb28 is documentary - I just want the shot - and it works, but you might consider a norman 200b or qflash or some other barebulb flash to up the quality of your portable light.<div></div>

I use a Canon G2 with a Nikon AS15 - though I've found that digital is usualy 1 to 1 1/2 stops faster than most films (of the same "asa" under studio lighting)and has a different look (particularly in the shadows), for important shoots, I still use Polaroids along with the digitals - since the G2 only closes down to f8 I also keep a few ND filters handy.

Another bit of info: the monorail is 17.5" long - I don't know if this helps...

Hi all:

 

My calumet 45 at full length stretches 13 inches from back of rear

standard to front of front standard - will a 305mm lens work on this

camera?

<p>

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

ViewItem&item=3824974823&ssPageName=STRK:MEBI:IT">lens i'm bidding

on</a><p>

If this lens is too long, what's the longest recommended tele?

"obviously traditional holders also do not have spring backs"

 

I meant pressure plates in the back...

Is there a double pack Kodak holder - or did the same holder work for the double and the single packs? I wonder because there are a few Kodak holders on ebay, but none specify. I've had good results shooting quickloads in my 545i, and obviously traditional holders also do not have spring backs, but I sure want the best bang for my film buck!<div></div>

"The Mamiya Lens was just sharper. An advantage of the 600se is the interchangeable backs..."

 

I look at a few 600ses and one 600 at Adorama - dusty but nice - they wouldn't come down on their bloated camera-store price - at least 5 bills if I remember ok. I know I've seen them on Ebay for $300 but I'm trying to swear off old gear, but if it really takes a much sharper image (the 127mm), then maybe I should reconsider (though I'm mainly shooting Polaroids in 4x5).

I love my UniLock, but it is heavy - this tripod takes some getting sued to, but it can be used almost anywhere...

"But the image quality of the 600SE is of much higher quality (which isn't always what you are after with Polaroid). "

 

I wonder where you get that information - all the research I did showed that the Rodenstock lens is one of the best Polaroid ever used - and everything I read says that most pros proof with the 180-195 models - the models that followed the 110s. The 600se (which I checked out) is a huge boxy affair, quite heavy, and quite expensive. This is not to take away from it, but until now I've never read that the 110s (a or b) were anything less than pro gear...

All of these terms apply to all formats of photography -

Polaroids not only are great for portraits, but the old folders are very portable, very very tough, have excellent lenses and rangefinders and make gorgeous shots - and, if shoooting 665 you get a superb negative. I looked at the 600se before deciding on the 110a (converted by 4 designs <a href="http://www.fourdesigns.com">Four Designs</a>) because of the size and the price. a 110a is like having a large format camera the size of a hard-cover book! It's an amazing piece of gear, and, unlike digital, is more analogous to film for proofing (and clients love the look of a polaorid picture) - though I'd like a 600se for the interchangable lenses and backs. <p>

<img src=http://www.jalook.com/maui/maui.jpg align=center><br>

Western Maui, Polacolor Pro (679?), 110a

Assuming that you're using fresh film (which I never do, 4x5 Polaroid can break the bank) or film that has proven to be alright unjder studio lighting, I wonder if you were shooting in shadow? That always picks up a cast.

I'm using a Flashmeter III with 10% spot attachment. I've got great

exposures with this, but tonight I was shooting the spuyten duyvil

bridge at sunset and wanted to expose just for the sky and found it

difficult to isolate the section that I needed. Will a true spot

meter make a difference in my calculations?

 

THANX!!!<div></div>

Monitor calibration is only as important as your final print. Calibration becomes much more important when you need consistency in output to different printing sytems - one day your printing to an RGB device, one day to a web 4 color press, one day you're sending web graphics to your partners in LA. If you're mostly printing B/W, then calibration means even less. I use Adobe Gamma to set up my monitor and make sure I'm printing using the proper profiles - I find that a much more important aspect - make sure your profiles are correct. Of course if your monitor is old, then you may see very different colors than appear in the final print, but if your prints are for your own use or are printed to your own specs, and if you're happy with the output and if you're not dealing with printing presses or farming your images to magazines and stuff, I'd use either Adobe gamma or the ColorVision and spend my money elsewhere.

"Julia, I have used a 20 foot long air (bulb) release (usually with my foot), and it works perfectly."

 

second that!