joseph_walsh2

Grant:

Re: "A few 21's"

Most very wide angle pictures should or could have been shot with longer lenses or cropped.

But not yours.

You have that "compose in the viewfinder" thing down...very hard to do with an ultra wide.

Good stuff!

Robert,

I've been teaching a Fashion Photography class for years (ok, decades...sigh). I require the students have a diffusion device of some sort for heads.

Over the years my students and I have viewed thousands of photographs using many, many different diffusers all the way from Softars to white hose.

The verdict for the best...by far...is the Nikon #1 Soft. (I find the #2 way too much)

You WILL get a "halo" effect from a hard specular highlight but that's the nature of the beast.

The N#1 Soft will produce smoothness but still maintain sharpness. This seems contradictory but it works.

Concur with Richard Sintchak. D3200 exposed at 1000 and developed in 1-1 Xtol at 1600 (a theoretical 2/3 stop overexposure) works best for me.

11 x 14 s from 6 x 7 have smooth tonality, quite unobtrusive grain and are sharp. Honest. (Yeah, I was surprised, too.)

BTW Roger,

RE: your people photographs at close range...:do you like to shoot first and talk later (or not at all) or do you prefer to engage in conversation, ask permission and then shoot? Or something else?

ONE DAY!? This is a LOT of good images for relatively little time.

You certainly have a high success rate.

Your vision and skill compliment each other, as I do you.

Thanks for posting this fine work, Roger.

While at another photographer's workshop at Santa Fe I was impressed

by Eugene Richard's work. The content, of course, but also that his

B and W images were superb. Biting sharpness, nice tonality combined

with a most appealing contrast. Classic Leica subject matter,

approach and results...or so I thought.

Nope. Olympus SLRs with Zuiko lenses. Hmmm.

Hasselblad owners are loyal and with good cause.

I recall one of my photographic heroes, John Brooks, had one camera and one lens, a 1000F Blad with a 180 Sonnar from the '30s. John and his lens were about the same age.

He shot only Black and White portraits by window light in his studio on Newbury Street in Boston (a very tony address).

John was very successful, charged a lot and could well afford "upgrades" but never saw the need.

Like Jeff, a lot of folks find the ergonomics of the Fuji off-putting.

Well, it is a bit quirky, but to me , not it's not a big deal. I've never used the Xpan but I use both the GSW and the Mamiya 7. To me, the $$$ outlay to quality of print ratio provided by the Fuji makes it a real bargain.

Hi David,

Subject-wise I'm a combination guy, most often shooting nudes in the landscape. To me, nothing does as well for both as APX 100. Superb tonality, smooth midtones, highlight separation and a "smack ya 'tween the eyes" snap with backlit scenes.

While I've shot FP4, I never found it exceptional. Perhaps if, like Lex, I'd worked with it more, I'd have been more impressed. APX was outstanding from the first roll.

I also use it in the studio for nudes and headshots with total satisfaction. There is a really lovely "burnished" quality to skin highlights when using small (1'x3' and 2'x2')soft boxes at some distance. The APX delivers it like no other film I've used.

APX 100 seems to like every developer I've tried with it over the years: Rodinal(1-50), D-76(1-1) and Xtol(1-2).

I shoot it in medium format (6x7) and rate it at EI 64.

Best to you

Sorry David, I don't know a conversion source.

Have you thought about the Fuji 6x9s? I use the w.a. version with the 65mm. I believe they've been discontinued but www.RobertWhite.co.uk has had some at a low price. Nice camera, very fine optics. IMO, superior to the Medalist in all ways.

"easily re-spool" ... David, you're far more dexterous than I! Wimp that I am, I buy 620 for my Kodak Medalist from J&C.

The Hawkeye was the road to perdition for me. At age 9, having exhausted (or so I thought) the capabilities of the 127 Brownie Holiday I upgraded to the Hawkeye for its "B" setting and flash. I later added a close up lens.

To date I have "updated" the Hawkeye to a Nikon F100, a Mamiya 7ii, a Horseman 4x5 and a total of 17 lenses.

Hawkeye Quicksand! :-)

Lex has a good answer, as usual, and further provides the "extra", as usual, insight: consider the quality of light.

I would only add that the reduced dev time for EI 200 is, in effect, an N- contraction, That would be a plan if the film were shot in contrasty light and / or of a very contrasty subject. If not, I'd simply give it "normal" development.

So your film is 1 stop over...not a bad thing.

Richard, I once had a FedEx rep tell me my film "probably" would not be x-rayed. But if it were, it would be the heavy duty luggage blaster. Can't vouch for the accuracy but that's what one employee told me.

Domenico, you may find my post of today "Recent---and happy---experience" on the Travel forum of interest.

Best wishes,

JW

I have just returned from a month long trip to France to which I

brought about 300 rolls of 120 black and white and color film ranging

from EFKE 25 to Ilford 3200 with which to feed my Mamiya 7

I had to go through security at Austin and Houston going over, Paris

(CdG) and Houston on return. I asked for and got a hand inspection

at ALL FOUR checkpoints. My film was never x-rayed.

I had one suitcase containing all my film and nothing but film, all

in factory boxes. At Austin and Houston I simply requested hand

inspection of the bag and was taken aside where someone was assigned

to do the search. No initial refusal, no groaning or rolling of

eyes. Very quick and professional.

During my stay I shot about half the film. While it was still

isolated in the suitcase obviously there were dozens and dozens of

open ( exposed) rolls of various 120 films . AT Charles DeGaulle I

was informed that the x-ray would not harm the film. I pointed out

that I had Delta 3200. They told me to separate it and they would

xray the remainder. I showed them the jumble of film and told them it

would be very difficult. They then requested a National Police

officer search the suitcase. He seemed quite astounded by the amount

of film but complied. By way of explanation I said to him, in

French, "I'm a professional photographer and have been in France for

a few weeks." He replied in French something I missed but took to

mean, "No kiddin'" He then said, without looking at me, "I am a

professional suitcase inspector."

The Houston inspection was without incident.

Anyway, thought I'd share some good news on the airport front. Hope

everyone is as fortunate as I.

Ned, Carsten:

Is grain really an issue with these slow films? I suppose it might be for 20" x 24" prints from 35mm. Otherwise, I would think tonality differences, if any, would be the issue. Where am i going wrong here?

Does Neofin Blue have any other desirable properties v-a-v. EFKE 25?

I shot my first roll of EFKE 25 and Ilford PanF last week with a Mamiya 7. Developed in 1-2 Xtol. At 16x20 I can barely find the grain with my Scoponet Grain Focuser.

Ah, Prague!

I have vowed that, if lucky enough to return to Prague, I will shoot with nothing newer than an M3. It will be fed TriX or perhaps some DIN 21 offering from Adox or Efke. Shooting will be done only at night. Or in fog. Or light rain.

I shall wear a trench coat and change my name to Yousef Walsche.

Of the 128 students who started in my class at Brooks Institute in 1969, two were women.

When I started teaching in college (1977) about 25% of our students (in the Photography Department) were women. Today, it is about 80%.

I often recommend students subscribe to and read Photo.net. Most of the female students (not all) find Photo.net rather dull. exception: Photo Critique

I have found the majority of male students to be interested in photography, the majority of female students interested in making photographs.

I have had wonderful results 95% of the time with APX 100, D400 and D3200 in 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3 Xtol dilution depending on specific application.

I've always assumed the failure rate (unexpectedly low or high contrast) was my own fault (I was raised Catholic)

An aside to David Henderson,

David, one thing (of several) I've been favorably struck by on your website is your square compositions. Conventional Wisdom says

: " Shoot the square and then crop vertical or horizonal later". That's what most do. I've noticed that your square photos cannot --- or at least --- should not be cropped.

Thanks Michelle and Bob,

Best wishes,

Joseph (Cogito ergo non toga est)

Not quite as stretchy as you might wish but superb optics, relatively low price and the 35mm aspect ratio is to be had with the Fuji GSW 69 and its 65mm lens. Equiv to 28 on a 35mm camera.

There was a show on TV tonight re: Architecural Digest Magazine. PBS or 60 Minutes, don't recall.

Anyway, the AD photographer was shooting interiors with what looked to be a Fuji 6x8 SLR.

Andras,

I did not pay for (nor do I own) this camera, so I really have no idea. I would think $350 for the body to be high, but...

Perhaps if you go to KEH.com you will find what they charge for a used 600.

What do you wish to do with it?