Jump to content

bob fowler

Members
  • Posts

    722
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by bob fowler

  1. OK, my "210" is REALLY an 8 1/2" (215mm), but I see a major difference from my 180mm. The jump from 8 1/2" to 12" was too much, so I bought a 10" to bridge the gap. At the same time, I got a great deal on a 9" lens (229mm), so I added that as well. I probably use the 9" and 10" lenses more than the 8 1/2"...
  2. I must be living in the 20's because I use a Century 4a for 5X7 and (soon) 8X10. My 4a dates to 1928. My "other" main camera for portraiture is a 5X7 Eastman View #2 which dates to about 1915. I bought that camera in 1986 for $75.00 - including 10 Fidelity holders and the lens, an 8 1/2" f/5.6 Ross Homocentric! I finally had to break down and get a new bellows for it last year. My Century 4a set me back me about $100 (ebay), which included a 10" US4 (f/8) B&L Rapid Rectilinear in a Century shutter (made by Wollensak). I installed a #6 Packard behind the lensboard so I could that classic glass with studio strobes.

     

    Carol Miller of Flutot's Camera Repair did a CLA on the Century shutter and got it pretty damn accurate. Considering the age of that shutter (at least 80, probably closer to 90 years old), it's pretty amazing. The shutter for my Ross Homocentric (an old dial set Ilex #4), is just finishing a vacation at her "shutter spa".

     

    As for film stocks... There is NO problem with "modern" films, the film doesn't care if the camera is old and the camera doesn't care about the film. As long as you use good film holders (no leaks), have a working understanding of light and exposure, and are willing to work at a slower pace, you should be fine.

     

    There are more B&W films available, especially in 5X7, than in a long, long time. Color negative stocks are limited to a few choices, but color transparency materials are available in a rather wide choice.

     

    Shooting portraits with large format is the cat's ass...

  3. If you can't find series VII filters but can find a retaining ring, you can drop MOST brands of 49mm filters in and it will work. I wouldn't do this for an ultra-wide lens, but for anything else you should be OK.

     

    BTW - 99% of my filters are series VII or VIII. If you REALLY want to use a 77mm filter on a lens designed for series VII (series VII filters are 2" in diameter), you can make an adapter yourself. Get an extra series VII retaining ring and a 52-77 step-up ring. Use some epoxy to attach the step-up ring to the front of the series VII retaining ring.

     

    I made a series VII filter adapter for a very old B&L Rapid Rectilinear by using a gel cyanoacrylate to attach a 50mm series VII ring onto a 1 3/8" slip on series VI adapter. I figured the odds of EVER needing the 50mm ring was between slight and none...

  4. <i>"Bob,,my wife helps me too !! I have shot other weddings with other assistants and they stink ! Even though my wife & I fuss a little at weddings, I would rather use her than any other assistant ! how about you?"</i><p>I used a couple of other assistants years ago, none could hold a candle to Liz because no one KNOWS ME like Liz. She can anticipate what I'm going to do, what lens I'll be reaching for... It's kinda frightening some times! :-)
  5. My wife and I have worked as a team since 1986 (I've been shooting weddings since, well, a lot longer than that...)

     

    When I was shooting Mamiya TLR's, Liz was reloading one while I was shooting the other, keeping track of what frame I was on, fixing peoples ties, hair and just making sure everything looked great.

     

    Since I changed over to a Bronica SQ-Ai system, she's been working on her shooting skills (I have 7 backs, so reloading is much less frequent). The last couple of weddings, she's been bringing along one of my Nikon FM bodies and shooting alternate angles and candids. We're not putting a second camera clause in the contract yet, but more than a few of her shots have made the albums.<div>00BNcy-22180584.jpg.26c6a9d893f44870f12f4d4dabf3fa96.jpg</div>

  6. I don't like using 35mm at weddings, but had to use my Tamron SP 200-500mm f/5.6 on a Nikon FM at one church to get <i>anything</i> during the service. Apparently, the photographer who shot there the week before pissed off the pastor so much, he said NOBODY was allowed to shoot from the floor, so for a couple of weeks, all the photogs had to shoot from the balcony. I found out the night before at rehearsal (the one time I was glad that I went). The rest of the job was shot with 6X6.
  7. I process all of my B&W film, as well as my large format color stuff. Color roll film goes to a local pro lab.

     

    As for my "favorite" B&W film... That's a loaded question. I choose the film based on the job requirement and the format I'm shooting. I tend to use a lot of Pan F+ and FP4+ in 35mm, J&C Classic 200 and 400 in 120 and 4X5 and 5X7 inch sheets, and lately J&C Pro 100 in 120. I used to shoot gobs of Tri-X and Plus-X, but I'm really getting great results with the J&C Classic. Most of the Tri-X I shoot these days is for me, not for work.

     

    I've used T400CN for some work, but it lacks that oomph that you get with "real" B&W film.

     

    Oh yeah, almost forgot... PanF+ souped in Diafine - true box speed and what a tonal scale! THAT has to be my personal favorite!

  8. Hi Jason,

     

    Stuart beat me to the punch and softened your shot quite nicely. I like shooting with directional light, but with female subjects, it most often demands some serious retouching! :-)

     

    Having said that, the highlight side of the face is just a little too over exposed for my taste. This is one example of where a little less exposure and a small amount of fill (even just a reflector)would make a huge difference.

     

    As for the spot color... Not my cup of tea, but you did a good job pulling it off.

  9. Shooting 'chromes at a wedding is not for the timid! Having said that, my first marriage was shot on Kodachrome (my brother shot the pix) and even though the marriage ended 20 years ago, the slides still look great! :-)

     

    Instead of going with 'chromes, I'd stick with neg materials and shoot Portra 160VC or 400VC to get the increased color saturation. At least with negative materials you'll have more forgiving exposure latitude to cover your butt.

  10. My guess is that it's a processing issue. If the film was processed in a roller transport machiine, it could have dirty or uneven rollers. Shoot a quickie roll of B&W and soup it yourself in a small tank and see if the marks are still there.

     

    I can't see how this would be a light leak issue, either from the camera back or internal reflections - both of which would leave lighter marks, not darker. Likewise, lens flare would show up as being lighter, not darker.

×
×
  • Create New...