allancobb

<p>For me, it's partly about control and ease of use; I feel I can do as much, if not more, with a camera equipped with merely manual focus, a few shutter speeds and f-stops than with something packing dozens of features that ultimately will lead me to the same result. But I also am in admiration of the fact that a basic camera made 50 or more years ago, can still function perfectly and produce outstanding results when in good hands.</p>

<p>David Vestal writes about this subject frequently in his column in <em>Photo Techniques</em> magazine. Basically, the term "better" is very subjective and defined by different people in different ways. What works for you may or may not work for others; the important thing is that <em>your</em> photography pleases you and the rest will fall into place. There may "rules" as to what constitutes a "good" photograph but they may or may not be followed to become "better." I think I can see a steady (based on my subjective view) improvement in my pictures over the years, but all the while what makes me happy is the important thing. If others like them or find them pleasing, so much the better, but I can't make someone else like my photographs. I know this may not be an answer, but that's the philosophy I follow in my photography; it doesn't mean I don't continually strive to become better, but it takes the pressure off... quite liberating! </p>

<p>My Zeiss 6x9 Ikonta folder that my Dad gave me when I was 15 (I'm 49 now); it has what could be described as anti-features as opposed to anything to make taking pictures easier; no rangefinder, just a focusing scale, eight exposures a roll, left handed shutter button (that's ok because I'm left-handed), slow Novar lens, limited shutter speeds, etc. But for some reason, I take some of my best pictures with it from architecture to landscapes to street photos! I can't explain it, but it's an extension of my hand, it just works for me. <br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/6982039<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/6442390</p>

<p>I'll second the use of the Pentax ME Super (or the all-manual MX)... compact (nearly pocket size with the 40mm f/2.8 pancake) and are indestructible. I've used both of them for a span of over 25 years and they haven't let me down!</p>

<p>Something only mentioned briefly here... because the same amount of information is spread over a larger surface area with medium format, the transition between tones is much smoother... a very noticable characteristic when comparing identical scenes shot with both 35mm and medium format.</p>

<p>Barry,<br>

I've used a Yashica D TLR as a street camera on a few occasions, and even a 6x9 Zeiss Ikonta folder fairly frequently! Here are examples of both:</p>

<p>The Yashica: <a href="../photo/2237747">http://www.photo.net/photo/2237747</a> </p>

<p>The Ikonta: <a href="../photo/6982039">http://www.photo.net/photo/6982039</a> </p>

<p>The point being, just about anything can be used as long as you are comfortable with it and YOU are happy with the results. There are no hard and fast rules!</p>

<p>Regarding the Mamiya 7 vs. the Bronica RF645, here's an interesting comparison:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=60012">http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=60012</a></p>

<p>The author seemed to prefer the Bronica as a street camera, but again, the choice is yours for what works best for you; like D.O. said, "love and be one with your camera"! Everything else will fall into place thereafter.</p>

<p>My trusty Pentax MX with the 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens... practically a pocket camera!<br>

Happy New Year!</p>

<p>Oops I guess I didn't get the hyperlink in there correctly. Here's the URL anyway:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00Rkdu">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00Rkdu</a><br>

Good luck!</p>

<p>Hi Mark, <a href="http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00Rkdu">here's</a> the link to my post from a few days ago. For some reason it's not in any of the archived categories yet as far as I know. Cheers, Allan</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for all the responses! I have plenty of reading material now for the holiday season. Cheers, Allan</p>

<p>I know this question has been asked regarding cameras in movies and TV shows, but what about fictional novels? Anyone know of any novels or anything fictional involving cameras/photography beyond a passing reference, where some aspect of photography was a primary element of the story? Anything where the author gets into specifics, i.e., brands, processes, etc? Just curious and looking for something fun to read. Thanks in advance!</p>

I have and continue to use one of these cameras on a regular basis (and I mean "used" over a period of 35 years!).

The f/4.5 Novar occasionally receives criticism on being "soft" but I beg to differ as long as it is stopped down to at

least f/8 and it is held VERY steady (hand held at 1/200 second or on a tripod/solid surface). I have a few examples

posted on my photo.net page here.

 

Additionally, as a true test, I can offer this from "The Ikonta Guide" regarding "zone focusing": "On the 2 1/4 X 3 1/4

Ikonta, a red dot will be found on the aperture scale between f/11 and f/16 and on the distance scale at about 33 ft. If

both distance indicator and stop indicator are set to the red dots --everything from about 15 ft. to infinity will be

sharp." Reprints of this guide, part of "The Camera Guide" series, can occasionally be found on Ebay and are very

helpful.

 

Hope that helps and good luck! Allan

My only comparative experience between these two developers is with HC-110 dilution B and straight D-76 on Kodak TMY. Tonality was pretty much identical as far as I could tell, but under the same degree of enlargement, I found HC-110 to be a bit grainier than the straight D-76. But the difference was slight and was a factor only at high magnifications. Probably not even worth mentioning if working with medium format. Cheers, Allan

Whoops, I didn't want that one to be so large either...

I regularly push Tri-X to 3200 using straight D-76 and am quite satisfied with the results. Granted, I only do this with 120 size film, so grain isn't as much an issue. Here's an example on a 6x9 negative (I only cropped portions of the top and bottom), 2 second exposure at f/8 on a Zeiss Ikonta 521/2. It's a scan of an 8x10 print. Yes, I know the Memorial is somewhat blown out, I didn't burn it in enough. A project for the future. :) Cheers, Allan<div></div>

<div></div>

Bill, I use the 120 version only and it says "KODAK PROIMAGE 100-5" across the top. Hope that helps! Cheers, Allan

Hi Scott,

I used ProImage 100 film occasionally when I lived in Korea where it's sold in numerous photo shops. It's not marketed in the US. It's not highly saturated, but is intended for portraiture, studio, social situations, etc. The other selling point is it can be stored at room temperature even in hot/humid climates. The grain is slightly finer also, Gold 100 (now known as "Bright Sun Film") having a PGI of 45 while the ProImage is 43. It's also very cheap! Here is a link to the tech sheet below.

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4L/e4L.pdf

 

Good luck, Allan

Yes, alas, it has been discontinued. There are numerous posts in the archives concerning (not so) suitable substitutes for VP; just search for "Verichrome Pan" and a ton of info will come up. I'm slowly chipping away at the 2 bricks I bought when the announcement was made last year. It is hands down my favorite film and there just isn't anything quite like it.

Actually, I've seen Mr. Dan Sapper from Kodak respond fairly

frequently to questions and issues regarding Kodak slide films on the

Photo.net forums. His inputs are enlightening as well.

 

<p>

 

In any case, I (we) welcome responses from any company reps on these

forums... they help set the record straight on many misconceptions

floating around out there!