lacey_smith4

the theory is about different skin tones, not so much how you measure them (yes that is important), and a black-indian-caucasian trio may be zone 4,5,and 6, or may be 3,5,7, or 3,4,7, or any combination in terms of final print targeting. So, the problem is a contrast issue --- printing down the caucasion's zone 7 to a 5-6 (where we sort of "expect" it) may well push the zone 3 into a very dark 2, or conversely raising the 3-4 to 4-5 push the caucasian to an 8-9, very white. (I am using B&W terms, but applies to color printing as well).

 

So, it is contrast control, and use of a lower contrast film, if they are to be mixed. Single tone wise, I don't see a huge problem (you can meter ambient or the face, and give +/- one stop usually allows enough play -- maybe 1.5 at max), unless you have auto-printing and bad contrast elements (white clothes on a dark face, etc).

 

Indian skin, incidentally, is often touted as being the mid-zone -- that is, matching ambient reading with a reflected reading, and blacks and caucasians 1 to 1.5 in either direction. After that, it is in printing, but that skin (assuming not a very dark variation) should require the least correction -- may .5-1 stop more light for a lot more detail.

 

A lot of commercial (e.g., drugstore/nonprofessional) will allow a punched up contrast, and that, coupled with more "vibrant" films, allows a more dramatic (but contrasty) impress-the-consumer result, with a lot of shadow loss. Wonderful for hot air ballon festivals, poor for people.

 

Search this site, we have seen some fair discussion on mixed wedding scenes (indeed, the white face on dark tux and dark face on white dress is the same issue, only as little more exaggerated).

Efke is touted for this reason, with thick silver use -- available U.S. several sites, try JandCphotography.com. Efke and fomapan are both "old style emulsions", as I understand it.

 

(I have just received my first EFKE, unshot and undeveloped, so I am not the expert)

I'm sorry - I forgot the obvious -- buy an old junker SLR whose shutter is shot, or an old Argus rangefinder, and read off that camera. You might even be able to dismantle that Argus for its rangefnder. But, you did want shoe mount. (I do too).

obviously any approach woud have to have some matching between lens and device -- a distance scaled marked on the lens board, for each lens. The beauty of a commercial device, as in the old rangefinders, is that that device would read off in standard measurements, but that is not required. That's why a home made device would be fine -- e.g., the cheapest drug store protractor, sighted though 2 straws, one rotating, as long as it was reproducible in position readings -- then the pre-use calibration exercise would transfer marks (degrees, pencil markes, whatever) from the gauge to the distance scale on the board. Whether it was meters, feet, degrees, or completely non-standard blips, wouldn't matter -- it is a calibration exercise.

 

Of course, the even older-yet photographer's solution was the string of known length. On a single string, you can have a set of three or four markings within your most crucial range, markings that correspond to calibrated markings on the lens bed extension scale, and you can guesstimate close. Finally, the other "old method" is to peer through a viewfinder and judge the height of something known -- say, a 1 foot stick against the side of the view finder.

 

All in all, guesstimating without device may be as well. But, you still need to mark your lens extension.

a pretty good substitute to a home made box would be a flat white relector board, bounce the flash off it. effect/light pattern depends on angle of bounce, distance to board from flash.

 

usually explained as the way to get your contra-lateral fill effect with a primary light source, but can be primary as well.

A crucial question is your film/equipment -- unless the soft box is pretty close, ASA 100 woudl be difficult to get an f11 (I think), but reachable with ASA 400. If you are using 35 mm prime lenses and can shoot at f2-f4, maybe 5.6, then chances of match pretty good. Large format, hoping to shoot f16-32, hopeless. Medium format, f8-11, depends on film and how close the box.

 

In general, such a setup will lose well over 1, maybe two or more stops (also the bigger the box (your size suggestion is pretty large for this project) diffusing it over a greater spread area, may make a loss of 3-4 stops). 2 flashes make up for 1 stop, then take 1-3 more off and see waht a single 285 at 1/2 - 1/4 power would do -- at least that will allow you to estimate before you buy.

 

The watt-seconds of the studio lights do not immediately translate to hand held flash guidenumbers, but I figured once you need a guide number at least 160-200 for a good (alebit weakish) soft-box smaller than your size (monolights may well be GN of several hundred, and results will vary with box). If I recall, the 285 is around 80-90 (?), which doubles to 1.4*90 = 126. I think you are jsut under my recommends. It will work, but not brightly.

 

Find a Metz or Sunpak potato masher handle-flash, they will be GN 140 to 180 as a single unit.

pc sync (lens) to hot shoe adaptor (flash) --

 

many versions, some pretty cheap. the length of the cord depends on how high you want to hold the flash off the lens - the shortest would be 6 inches or so, could be many feet (with extenson cords).

 

Obviously cannot use any of the sophisticated Nikon flash-camera features, so no need for Nikon cords (I am unfamiliar with SB-24, but you will not be using the other Nikon electrical connections besides the single middle position and the shoe-ground -- and the SB-24 is worng if it simply a hot shoe extension). If you use auto-anything, it will be on the flash only, and many cheap flashes will work

 

a 210 on 4x5 is not a very large field of view; almost any flash will work and cover fine (if you shift, remember to shift the flash coverage as well). For 4x5, no real problems with flash coverage till you get <120-135mm lens (or thereabouts). The rules for flash use are no different for 4x5 than for 35, but you will not have TTL automation/auto good exposure, and you will need to think a little more. You can sync at any speed, actually more versatile than most SLRs.

used, they still show up on e-bay and such.

 

Golf rangefinders are the modern equivalent, but are not set for the crucial photo ranges (e.g., 6-8 feet) - but they are pocketable, and may work well, I just don't play golf. There are some ultrasonic measuring devices for room dimension distances, but you can't aim too well. There are some laser guided aimers in hardware/building -- and I assume they have some accuracy. All would be hand-held, as opposed to shoe mounted.

 

I have been thinking about the same thing; my older rangefinders do not always work and/or are very dim (I have a couple, and they are from the 20s and 30s). A build it yourself is to take a $10 laser pointer, mount it on a rotating protractor, and site through a straight tube firmly positioned and located a few inches away. Just don't point it in eyes.

no, the number has an extra space in it -- delete it, so the whole string is contiguous. Seems a common problem with the format of input.

is the light-leak most usually on the hinge end, or loss from the sides (unlikely?), or loss of the light integrity on the insertion end and its felt liner (is that felt?)?

 

For those leaks on the hinge end, what is the best replacement tape? Seems like a cloth tape for strength/durability, but straight plastic tape for light-tightness. Experience? (I am about to go through some repairs of this genre).

a easier approach to get 2 slots of 2 3/8 by 5 negative (6x13) is to make a lengthwise cutout on a darkslide, or 3 slots of 1 1/2 by 4 (width cut), and shoot regular 4x5. I know that has been done before -- though the ones I've seen (and made) are in the context of a single slot, reverse position for next slot, not both at once.

 

(be careful on your cut-outs -- I thought I would leave a square frame (hole in middle, exact frame size, surrounded by dark slide), but the far end of the inner frame caught and tore the light tight lining on the holder. Since, I cut the opening all the way (so the dark slide is a "L" shape), and no problems, though it is possible to set the dark slide a little katti-whompus unless you are careful. For that reason, I have not tried the narrow dimension cuts.

I have an old Ross 292 mm telephoto -- which requires abuot 40-45% of the 292mm for infinity focus (most telephotos require about 60% or more). So, assuming a similar bellows reduction, you still need a 20 inch bvellows (absoulute minimum) and to focus closer than a 100 feet would take a very long bellows indeed. I would think this one would be used ofr a true camera obscura -- mount the thing in the window, darken the room, and watch the world go by...

 

It is possible, however, that the label is for the diagonal of the negative. Old lenses were sometimes labeled for the format they were intended for. Whether that would translate into focal length directly, more or less, I guess.

1. your film will be ok, but consider the developer (as above). Look at Massive developer Chart (www.digitaltruth.com) for some times and ASA ratings -- I would use 1600 or 2000, (the film is actually, I think, even in Kodak literature, a true ASA 1000-1200, just allows pushing). Everyone will have their favorite film/developer combos, and, at this stage, just take what you have, as you do not have experimentation time. It will be ok. If it is really dark, push that film hard; if not, ASA 1600. (I've nothing against pushing Tri-X or HP-5, though higher ASAs (above 1600) arer a stretch, I think).

 

2. Most low light recommendations are for high contrast (imagine the dark pub witha single light off somewhere). Reception halls, party rooms, and so forth may actually be very low contrast (lots of light, all directions), but you will have some heavy-shadowed areas. Therefore, the above recommends to meter ahead of time (and not fool around on every shot) is very valid -- 2-4 areas of the rooms sampled should get you close enough for ballpark shooting. You can meter off your hand (or the floor, assuming ceiling height is high)

 

3. have fun -- especially if you are a participant. Go for expressions and situations -- that is what people want, nto perfection in exposure (accept "close enough" on exposure, let some dark clothes or shadows go featureless).

 

4. echoing above -- I would use prime lenses for their faster f-stop and thus fast shutter speeds, compose by moving, rahter than using a zoom. A 50 is surpisingly adaptable for medium far and medium close. Use whatever you've got, but do not spend a heck of a lot of time changing lenses, especially when you've spotted an opportune moment --

nothing gets more in the way of spontaneity.

I am not real sure that you can achieve all you want, but try these suggestions:

 

1. from a reasonable (stage) height, lean the back standard forward, so that it approximates a parallel to the rising seats. (If the back were perfectly parallel with the seats, the perspective would be of a "flat wall"). You will not be able to go completely flat, of course (light needs some path), but you will "enlarge" perspective on the rear seats.

 

2. Go higher, and you can do some of the same maneuver, without tilting forward quite so much (the relative distance camera-to-front-row compared to camera-to-back-row is closer to the same from high). You will, however, have a higher outlook.

 

This is analagous to architectural examples -- you cannot get straight verticals on a building if you are positioned at its base, no matter the tilt, but have a chance if you are a few score feet away.

 

Remember, perspective is governed by back position, lens panel governs plane of focus (you will need some tilt, probably, for optimal focus), and or relative camera position (for shifts).

 

I would think you should investigate theaters as much as cameras -- some of the newer ones are steep enough to help with your needs, some are nearly flat, and I think not possible. In my local museum IMAX, for instance, you are almost there -- a very steep rise, and a little back forward tilt, couple with fornt rise (to elevate the center to center frame), and slight front tilt would have it. But, permission would be another thing entirely.

yes, the hP-combi tank is what I have.

 

Nice article -- if you only do 6 negs at one time, you can save the cost of extra tanks (using his method) by finding refrigerator containers -- like Tupperware® or Rubbermaid®, or Dollar-Store® -- they now make in rectangular shapes, I found some almost the exact size of the HP-combi -- just cut off extra height (I think these were 1/2 gallon things).

yes, they exist -- I am less sure of names, will try to look at mine, but not tonight.

 

I am not certain which ones are still on market -- might look at B&H and do search -- or Midwest photo might be a good used place, if you do not have a scrounge-store around.

 

I am aware of two kinds -- one, almost a large cube, with moveable dividers, for a variety of film sizes, slots for, oh, 10 or 12 4x5 negs. I know at least two companies used to make these. The other, still in production, I'm sure, has 6 slots, is a rectangular shape, and has a guide to help slide the negs in the right slots.

 

Some purists will argue, perhaps correctly, that exchange of developer is insufficient between the large negs with narrow spacing, but I think that is probably developer/agitation specific, worse, of course, with exhausting developers. My only bad experience was placing the large one on a eccentric rotary device to have constant motion -- but apparently not enough eccentricity to evenly distribute the developer. At any rate, I've gotten ok negs with back and forth agitation -- try to remember the orientation of the negs, so you can agitate the fluid out of the space, rather than mostly back and forth against the neg.

 

The purists will also point out that you cannot individualize development times -- they all get the same. That, obviously, is true.

that probably is a big lens for the Crown -- maybe too big. Rather than attaching the lens to the camera, why not try attaching the camera to the lens?

 

Seriously, if you ever want to rangefinder couple it, you will (probably) need an extender lens board -- which you may now need to clear the front apparatus, if this is a really big shutter/lens. (the rangefinder coupling issue is due to the extension needed to get infinity focus may be beyond the shortest rf coupling range, with the lens simply sitting at the end of the rails). Some sort of cone (? tin can), attached to a normal lnes board. Actual graphic boards of this type existed, but seem retty rare.

 

www.schneider.com will have some vintage lens data -- mostly age, I suspect, maybe filters size, coverage, etc. Don't know if they will be explicit about sync. But, by the early 50's, electronic flash was making a splash, so I would be suprised if not x-synced (unless this was a pre-war designed shutter, as it may well have been).

HIPAA is very strict on several aspects of patient privacy, mostly justifiably so (but also a bit excessive, in some cases). The enforcment is a mega-fines and potential criminal charges against the hospital or practice site (it is not jsut hospital specific), so enforcement is pursued. HIPAA dealines for implementation were this year, so the rules did change.

 

However, what you describe sounds like a hospital specific reaction, perhasp a little strong, but I understand it. -- There have been rules against photos, and including patients without permission, for a very long time, but folks often ignored it. The basic HIPAA premise is against anything that would disclose a patient's circumstances against his/her will, and that includes the bare fact that he is a patient -- let alone the context of the specific ward (e.g., a cancer ward). So, all those people in the backgrounds are now out, including the out of focus "others" in the waiting rooms... but there is nothing HIPAA-ish about a flower show, unless there are patients wandering around, which there might be.

 

It seems odd to me that a piece of legislation aimed at portability of medical insurance coverage should resound so strongly on this note alone.

the general rule is to keep the back straight (obvious), which keeps the verticals straight, and rise the front standard (or lower the rear), to raise the perspective to fill the frame as you wish.

 

How much of an effect is rise/fall/shift? -- well, it is fairly easy to estimate/calculate.

 

(distance from subject)*(Front Rise)/(lens extension) = rise in perspective point

 

Now, no front rise, no change in perspective, and the mid point of the frame is camera-eye level, so you get a lot of sidewalk/street. A 100 foot subject distance, with a 150 mm lens (lens extension = 150 at infinity) raised 25mm, raises the image frame center to a point 16.67 feet above camera level -- say, top of first floor architecture.

 

A 90 mm lens, same 100 foot distance, raised 25 mm, raises perspective 25 feet -- maybe, top of second floor is now mid-frame. But, many 90 mm lenses will not allow that sort of movement.

 

Walk around your neighborhood, and try things at approximate across street distances. You will not, with normal LF lenses, get very tall buildings with straight verticals beyond a few floors. A huge coverage lens (say, for an 11x14), on a 4x5 film, might allow perspective change approximating subject distance, but not much more.

 

As far as lens choice -- again, the larger the coverage, the more movements you will have. But, the angle of view is smaller as well, and most cameras do not have enough rise for huge proportional movements for longer lenses.

 

All in all, you can get the front view of museums and a few other things, limited to a few floors, but you will not get 28th floor vertically correct detail. You need distance, then a longer fl lens to narrow the field, and a modest rise will then work.

I do not have the 2800 -- but (assuming some sort of distance-fstop guide still is shown on the flash -- either a table or dial) -- the basic full information is f-stop based on distance, on full manual (correct, full power). There, you have to adjust the fstop based on distance.

 

For the auto -- which typically might be a red, yellow, or green mark on that table or dial, (you would apparently have such marks), the mark is set at the maximum distance that "reduced" flash would be effective (there is also a minimum distance, usually seen on many flashes). If both max and min distance are marked, there might also be a red or yellow band around the dial, or range oterhwise marked on the table, indicating the distance range that the flash can adjust output for.

 

Some of the fancier flashes had actual movement(change) of the dial or table as you selected which auto range was used. Again, if this does not happen, there are likely two color bars across the numbers or around the edge of the distance numbers.

 

That is, a f8 setting (near max output), might be valid anywhere from 3 feet to 15 feet; a wider f4 setting (less light output), valid from 2 feet to 8 feet. Closer or further, the flash may not control output appropriately. You set the lens to f8 or f4, depending on which auto-falsh setting you select, and, as long as you are in the indicated distance range, that is all there is to it.

 

Whether the setting is f8, f5.6, or f11 for the flash's max auto output is determined by film speed (again, indicated somehow on the flash proper).

 

www.craigcamera.com (I htink that is it) has a LOT of manuals for pretty cheap, and very likely has the 2800 manual. This stuff is also covered in many of the starter photo books, Kodak, Rogger Hicks, others. Trip to the library?

Laura -- I am sympathetic for the "what to carry around" question -- I like the studio type cameras movements a lot, and found an (old) 1930's Brand camera, that is quick and easy to set up and move with. Orignally, it was designed to be a combo --- Press convert to Studio setup. It even had a Kalart rangefinder (not now); and has very full movements. So, clever older cameras do exist.

 

I have a Super Speed Graphic I will sell to a student (see your e-mail), which is not the prettiest in the world, but the Super has much moore movements than the Crown or the predecessors (specs on www.graflex.org). I previously had a wood field (Wista) -- which always had the more glorified feel to its use, and was fairly quick to use, but nothing as "spontaneous" as the Super. The wood fields will still have a bit more movement than the speed, however.

 

The Speed can be nicely hand-held, even without the rangefinder (which would be dandy), it is hard to do so with a Wood Field. Once focussed, the "sports-finder" makes framing easy enough for street shooting (not if movements are used, of course). The rotating back is quick, nad means you hav only one style of holding. I suppose I am uncertain what type walk-around photog you would do, but I know there are many tripod limited/tripod awkward spots around your domain. That type hand-held photography, of course, is what the Graphics existed for.

 

The Speed has a 12.75 inch bellows draw (I think), which is short for say, anything >240 or longer lens-wise (if you do close-shots), but that also pertains to many of the field cameras mentioned, some as short as 10 inches, which would limit you to 210 or so.

 

Finally, the similar-vintage British press camera -- the MPP -- is available off and on on E-Bay, mabe maybe more so in Europe. I've not used one, but they had an even better set of movements, and, I think, have a good reputation.

 

If I were you, I would pick the body with movements, if you are architectural or "art" and can afford a good angle lens, or else compromise on a Press camera if you want handleability, including casual street shots, sans tripod. The movements are not that bad, especially on a Super, and you will not be able to use massive movements anyway unless you go to expensive lenses, longer lenses, or even larger format lenses (a typical affordable used 135mm has very little shift left, a 150 begins to have an inch or so, a 210 enough to cover 5x7, etc.).

 

Your costs need to calculate in what lens you need, whether you can borrow film holders, and all the other foo-fraw this addiction costs. The camera, to me, is not as important as the lens, assuming you are not after massive movements (which is monorail anyway).

I like the expression of character, and the less-focussed balancing face in the background. Intense features, a lot of life, and, I think, determination.

 

If I could interpret the black object in the lower left corner as the Koran (sorry for my American spelling), it might even be a bit more powerful -- though, as I cannot, I would suggest cropping just the smallest amount possible from the left side, so the distraction is gone.

Sorry, I do not see the Series 5.5 adaptor rings at B&H, but search and you may find them.

 

Both the 40 and 90 for the CL had this odd size -- with nice hoods, not easily replaced. The Minolta lenses that followed (? coincided) for the CL/CLE had more modern filter sizes.

 

I had a 90, and someone had wedged a filter/hood into it, to which I could screw further 39 filters into the front -- I think it was a 39mm -- and it worked ok. But, it was not a "fit".

be sure of which lens. the 40mm elmarit-c and summicron-c both took Series 5.5 filters, which is not exactly a 39mm thread.

 

 

I believe B&H would have some adaptor rings, Series 5.5 to something or another, though the best target may be a 40.5 or 43 (by the way, 1 or two adaptor rings (especially 2 stacked, 5.5->40.5->43, or something) makes a modest hood.) And, the final larger end thread is a more findable filter thread.

 

As far as true 39 mm hoods, the current hood for the collpasible 50mm elmar fits any (other) Leica 39 mm filter thread.

the small internal bayonet of the collapsible elmar and early summicron bayonetted (the bayonet responsible for locking it open). The newest collapsble (post 94) has an added thing that blocks this -- I am not sure of ill effect if removed, but I would expect normal locking extension might be affected. It does not work with any of 1950's adaptors using this small bayonet, to my knowledge.