alan1

all this palaver is entertaining, but I suspect you should just contact

the instructor. At my school, we were required to have a 35mm camera

and a tripod was a good idea. The rest was availible to be checked out

for use.

<i>i have had a lot of input from professional photographers, not an

artist huh?</i><p>

Yep. And one of the professionals you have had input from is me. I

have been supporting myself on photo dollars alone for 4 years -- no

pizza delivery job, no waiting tables, no government grant, no trust

fund, no checks from mom. You can ignore my opinion if you like.<p>

<i>look at yourself first before you bust my ass. sorry i don't work

for olan mills pthbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb.</i> Or you can look at my work

and respond in kind. I'm not afraid of what anyone can say about it -

but its only fair to warn you - I'm not interested in anyone elses

suggested changes. <a href="http://members.xoom.com/symmar">http://

members.xoom.com/symmar</a>

You guys are right. The masses just love your pictures so why do

anything different? Why even ask a dinosaur like me who is so anal

that he bothers to change his chemistry once in a while what I think?

What I tell you will just interfere with your very forward looking

vision, never mind that it was boring when Man Ray did it in 1920.

1) Take a look at Packard shutters.<p> http://www.hubphoto.com/

packardshutters.htm<p>

I have never used one myself but the website explains a lot.

Apparently they fit in front of or behind of the lens.<p>

2)I have taken a few "portrait" type pictures with 4x5 camera and

availible light with shutter on "b" so I know it's not convenient but

it can be done. You are limited in the types of poses you can ask your

subject to assume, but when I look at the work of some 19th century

portraitists, I don't see this as a liability...<p>

August Sander worked for most of or all of his life with barrel lenses,

no polaroid and film with an ei of 12 or so and his pictures are

fantastic.

I heard that Linhofs were actually made by Burke and James --- never

mind that BJ went out of business years ago -- theyve got millions of

'em stored in caves in Thuringen! The Pope is responsible for

relableing the cameras from "Burke and James" to "Linhof" --- he wanted

to get back at Americans for electing protestants as president. So

don't waste thousands on Linhof when you can buy a BJ 4x5 for hundreds!

That Carl Zeiss lenses are actually "cosina" lenses with "zeiss"

painted over "cosina." Tmax is actually respooled Chinese army surplus

film from 1958! That Ernst Leitz is NOT headquartered in Wetzlar, but

is run by the illuminati of Bavaria, who are closely tied to the Masons

and the people who killed JFK. Of course, every morning I carefully

line my hat and shoes with aluminum foil and drink a cup of canola oil

to protect myself from cosmic rays...Don't be fooled! Believe

EVERYTHING you read online! Its only in the newspapers that they LIE!

<i>i get more good comments about those than just about any other of my

work, yours is the first bad one i've ever had. so

you don't like the litho posterizations and offset pos/neg litho

prints, i do and this is about my art and vision, right? i sell these,

they win prizes in shows, where is the part that i'm doing

wrong?</i><p>

"Yall tell me what you think please..."<p>

The problem is I see the technique, not the picture. Start with that

thought and you'll eventually arrive at why I don't hold with all that

eccentric darkroom work.<p>

Okay - here's my opinion with specific references to specific photos.

If you don't have a thick skin. read no further. <p>

First off, throw out all the solarizing, sabbatier, high contrast and

collage stuff. I could tell you why, but that would just irritate both

you and I. Is it sufficient to tell you that such work may be

entertaining for the photographer to do once or twice, but for the

viewer its boring? If we throw out all the solarized, hi contrast,

etc., it gets rid of about half.<p>

http://www.gadsby.net/annsm.jpg --- chopping people up into little

artsy fragments shows us nothing about the people -- just their little

parts. I'm not particularly interested in nipples and elbows without

the people these parts belong to. You may as well be photographing

fruit or flowers if you are going to abstract your subject in this way.

On some level, to turn someone into an artsy fragmnent -- I think its

kind of insulting to your subject.<p>

http://www.gadsby.net/trishsm.jpg --- my rule of thumb: if it's not an

interesting picture WITHOUT the hand coloring, it's probably not much

better with it. If you want to use a brush, buy some canvas. There is

probably no real good way to photograph someone wearing raccoon eye

makeup squatting under a dark tree with the background blown out -

maybe you should wash her face and bring her out into the light?<p>

http://www.gadsby.net/jenna-jamesonsm.jpg --- is there any reason you

like this picture other than the size of those tits?<p>

http://www.gadsby.net/brainiacs_daughter.jpg --- too dark. I know your

art teacher told you to print contrasty, but lets face it -- he didn't

know what he was talking about. I can't see the woman's feet. I can't

see the legs of the guy sitting on the bumper. The lower half of the

picture is black mush. Availible light can only do so much when you

want to shoot art rockers dressed in black in a garage. The guy on

the left - his face is way too dark. These people look too posed for

this to be a "casual" shot but not posed enough for this to be an

effective group shot - in other words, they look uncomfortable and like

they don't know what they are doing but theres this photographer there

so... I mean, the way that woman is standing, it looks like there's a

pole up her butt. Look at someone like Irving Penn to see how he

photographs groups. Every gesture and body in a Penn is as carefully

considered as a figure in a rennaisance painting -- and that applies

whether he is shooting a garage band or a group of CEOs.<p>

I know I haven't been very nice oin my review -- but I have at least

tried to be honest. That should count for something. If you don't

like my review, you can retaliate by a savage review of my work on this

forum. http://alandale.freeservers.com

Also - use a carpenter's square (I like the kind with the adjustable

squaring arm) to make sure that BOTH stops are the same distance from

the ground glass so that you front standard stays square with your rear

standard. This works with both the miniature crown graphic and the

4x5.<p>

http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/kalart-adjustment.html<p>

The above page will tell you how to set the rangefinder. Graflex.org

also has info on the focus scales but I have yet to find a retailer who

will sell me specific pre-printed scales for specific focal legnth

lenses --- I'm making do with a home made one for now.

I don't worry about the "absolute" accuracy of my leaf shutters since I

almost always use Polaroid. In many cases I have shot 2 sheets film -

develop 1 and then develop the second, adjusting development up or down

according to the first sheet.<p>

I suspect that processing of film introduces more "x-factors" than an

old shutter being a few milleseconds off.

I forgot to add --- I am not certain the glass plates will fit into a

standard 4x5 holder. Does anyone know this?

I see they can be ordered from Clyed's.<p>

http://www.clyeds.com/plateflm.htm.<p>

The cost is around $6 per plate BEFORE shipping so I don't think this

is a very cheap option.

Voigtlander's "Zoomar" lens was the first zoom for 35mm camera, not LF;

35-70mm or something like that. Incidentally, I think it was not even

made by Voigtander but by an American optical firm.

I have a Crown Graphic 2x3 with side mounted Kalart rangefinder. I have the instructions for adjusting the rangefinder to different lenses - I would like to use it with wider angles. Does anyone know if this rangefinder can be adjusted to accomodate lenses wider than the 101mm mentioned in the text of the original instructions?<p>

Also --- I am looking for a focus scale for wide lenses (65mm?) for he same camera.<p>

Thanks!