karl_knize

Katherine -- You've gotten good advice above. One thing to keep in mind is

that although fiber base prints will always have some small amount of curl no

matter how you dry them, the rate at which they dry has a big effect on the

amount of curl you have to deal with. I have a simple home made drying box/

cabinet with a door on it that I can close or keep cracked a bit depending

upon the time of year and the amount of humidity in the air. It will hold about

20 11x14's and I generally allow the prints to dry over a minimum 8 hour time

frame, with 12 -24 the ideal. The prints lie on screen shelves in the box and

by slowing down the drying time the amount of curl is reduced dramatically, to

the point where little drymount heat /pressure is required to make them very

flat. In my experience I've found that once a print dries with a lot of curl a

drymount treatment will never get the print as flat as when the print dries

slowly. May you have good results!

Eric -- When I looked the other day the new Bessa's were 600 or

so. Add in a quality piece of glass or two and you're more than

double that pronto. For a film camera. In today's market I'm

guessing that a polaroid back with a fiber optic in it might go for

500 or so if CV were to offer one. Not cheap, but not horrible

economics to be able to proof shots made wide open or with

longer glass wide open. It could transform a Bessa from a

prosumer walkaround to a professional tool, in my opinon.

We're really in a selective focus market at the moment.

I've had an NPC polaroid back permanently attached to an FM for

many years now. Looking at the 24x36 image certainly isn't my

ideal, but in practice working with a loupe it gives me a lot of

information. Probably more valuable than looking at a laptop

LCD in the field, short of the histogram. Most of my commercial

work has been done with Hass. and LF over the years, until

recently when I started shooting MF dig. with Imacon, so the back

hasn't seen a tremendous amount of use but it's been very

valuable at times.

I've had the increasing desire for some time now to upgrade my

35mm system, including my RF, and start working with some of

the great, fast glass for my stock and commercial work. If

Epson, Leica or someone offered a full frame chip I might very

well go down that road. But frankly, the current conversion

factors and file size leave me wanting. What do you use to work

at a 35mm equivalent at 1.4? And my stock agency wants 100

meg./ 8bit files if I don't send them film. That's a lot of

interpolation from a 6 or 10MP file. And yes, I run Genuine

Fractals from time to time. I've rented and worked with Canon

1Ds, and it's like hauling around a jukebox. Until this technology

evolves a bit I think it would be great to be able to work with a

Noct , a Lux or the equivalent on a film camera and make a few

polaroids as necessary. So what's the big deal? NPC has

backs for a lot of cameras including MF RF if I remember

correctly. The thought occured to me that perhaps there's some

smart technician out there who could convert my FM back to the

VC back.

I had a thought recently and emailed NPC, with no response as

yet. If a polaroid back were available for Bessa's, allowing you to

proof your setups, how many of you would be interested ? I

think it would a tremendous asset for commercial and

assignment work.

Kevin--- Well executed silver gelatin has a look that inkjet

doesn't.. Not just tones, not just blacks -- depth, luminance,

character. Having spent the money and done the homework

with Cone Editions quadtone, profiles, calibration and endless

screwing around to get monochrome output that's accurate,

doesn't show a lot of metamerism, and resembles silver gelatin

in some way, this is what I've come to believe. That it's about

more than having a full tonal scale or being able to clone out that

beer can that you should have seen in the first place. Or being

able to to poorly expose a scene and then resurrect it in PS.

I have no ill opinion of folks who output from desktop inkjet, and

no ill opinion of inkjet in general other than the cost in regard to

consumables. I can buy high quality 11x14 sensitized paper for

$1 and coated rag for inkjet is $2. Go figure. I think Epson ,

Legion, Hahnemule and the rest are laughing all way to the

bank. When it comes to color, I think inkjet comes into it's own. I

don't miss C prints a bit, and like everyone else I love the contol

over the output. It's a fabulous bit of technology. But when it

comes to B&W, I don't think that inkjet droplets sitting on the

surface of a sheet is the same, or the equal of silver halide that's

been exposed to scattered light . It's not the equal and not as

good. Just my opinion.

Convenience, resolution, ease of adjustment and editing, lower theoretical

cost, so forth and so on, hooray for digital! But in the end, in regard to print

and not just virtual images on monitors, I think that anyone who thinks that dig.

capture and output has the same feel as well executed film work is simply

delusional. Film will be around for a long, long time but with fewer choices

and greater cost as the market diminishes.

John, once you get more familiar with your Deardorff you'll find that you can

tension the knobs on the lensboard so that they're tight enough to hold rise/

fall in place but you can still tilt the lensboard if you wish without disturbing the

rise/fall position. Severe tilt will tighten the knobs though and you'll have to

adjust. And of course big heavy lenses make this almost impossible. For

parallel, I simply use a small handheld level that fits in my pocket, quickly

bring the back to vertical, check with the level and then do the same on the

lens standard. Takes about 1 minute.

I've been loading my Hexar AF with NPH and NPZ lately, playing with a

desaturated color look, and so long as the C-41 processing is clean that's all I

care about. I have no qualms taking my street stuff to Costco as they do so

much volume the film comes back to me in good shape. C-41 chemistry is

pretty basic and pretty consistent from machine to machine. Now, if they'd just

set up a D-76 line ....

With the camera vertical, does the flash come over 180 deg. so that it's still

centered over the lens? I'm assuming yes. And how far above the lens is the

flash with the camera vetical?

It's not the latitude that bugs me so much as the edges and transitions, as

mentioned by Huw up above. The more abrupt edge transitions give some --

many, but not all -- images a vague cut and paste quality that truly irritates me

at times. I sometimes wonder if this is largely unnoticed by the average user,

of if the blinders have been put on for the sake of convenience and it's simply

part of the bargain and not to be mentioned. On the one hand you have guys

waxing about bokeh characteristics and in almost the same breath panting for

an RD-1 or a digital M release from Leitz. I just don't get it.<div></div>

I think the thing to keep in mind is that your clients don't look at pictures and

don't make them as their livelihood. If they're the rare client that looks at a lot

of photographer's samples before making a decision, then perhaps your

reservations may have some basis, but probably not to any big degree. I think

wedding clients are most concerned about simply capturing the moments that

count to them and if you meet their expectations via what's "formula" shooting

to you, it probably won't register as formula to them since they're unique to

the equation. Just about every wedding has a laundry list of standard

scenarios , and I suppose in the end it's all about how you approach them.

Most of my work now is on the commercial side and involves showing

portfolios to potential buyers who look at a lot of photography, all of the time.

Then the feeling that there are no new ideas/interpretations and everyone has

seen and done everything in every conceivable way sets in from time to time!

Wedding clients are far less jaded than the average commercial art buyer,

which is one of the things I find refreshing about the wedding market.

Usually, photographers who badmouth 35mm because it doesn't enlarge as

well as MF or LF never learned how to interpret a really good print, and lack

the talent to make a really good photograph in any format. They run around

looking for inspiration in their equipment rather then their technique, and

because larger film begets inherently sharper images they assume that their

mediocre imagery is somehow transformed because it's on bigger film. It's a

conceit of the untalented.

For myself, the process of working with a small handheld camera, with superb

optics and then printing on my V35 is simply unto itself. I love the process and

the resultant look. Well executed silver gelatin prints have a depth to their

surface and a luminance that is simply lacking in desktop inkjet. I do both by

the way. I have the calibrated equipment and can capture with high end MF

gear. And the inkjets look just marvelous. But they don't look the same as

silver gelatin and why should they? Two different print processes completely.

Each requiring practice and diligence to master.

I've been using F100's for a few years now, with only one incident along the

way. Once during a ceremony, at exactly the wrong time, the fork on the

rewind spindle snapped off when the film hit the end and the automatic

rewind was engaged. Fortunately my assistant picked up the slack as I

swapped out bodies and all was well. I had the spindle replaced with a metal

one instead of plastic for about $200 including a once over. The technician

said that a broken fork is a fairly common repair on the F100, and is a weak

point. Other than this, the bodies have been flawless. Loading is a breeze.

Mike, are you available during the week as well? If so, and if you're interested

in working as a second or third assitant on ad shoots as well as wedding

work, email me directly so I can lean more about your background. I'm in the

city, on the near north side.

I'm recanting on my previous post. As I've grown deeply weary of endless

digital hype, perhaps the thread caught me on the wrong day. No doubt,

there are current owners and those considering who will derive great

satisfaction and benefit from this new platform, and others like it in the future. I

regret raining on their parade. As we all have different needs and application,

the economics certainly follows, and it doesn't take a tremendous amount of

F&P in today's world to run up a $3K tab over the course of a few years. And

whether or not the platform is my cup of tea at the moment, the samples

certainly got my attention. Thanks Josh and Bob!

It's called an opinion. And opinions can be negative, even here where we

dare not offend tender sensibilities. No one was attacked personally, at least

by myself. I'm not bashing digital or promoting film over dig. capture.

Whatever floats your boat, however much you want to pay for the ride.

No, I don't want it to be subpar: I just think it's a ripoff. $3K for this platform

and chip size is a ripoff.

To me it seems that there's a kind of mass hysteria about this camera. That

somehow, being able to put fabulous glass intended for film exposure onto a

platform with a crappy 6MP chip in it is somehow going to make the crappy

image quality significantly better. I think you're deluding yourselves. The

captures still have a cut and paste quality about the edge transition and the

tonality is harsh and uneven, although probably enhanced by the superior

optics, but so what? I'm not knocking digital here, as I work digitally along

with film. But by any stretch of the imagination, does anyone here really feel

that the quality of these files is anywhere close to film quality? Not just

sharpness, but overall quality. If this toy was $900 or so, I'd happily jump on

board. But at $3K, give me a break.

I'm sure there's more input coming, but thanks everyone for the input so far. I

have some thinking to do. The only Leica anything I own is a V35 enlarger

with a Heiland Splitgrade, and it's a pure joy. My philosophy is to use what

works for me, keep what I use and sell what I don't. Quite recently, the CV

stuff has climbed into my consciousness and in all honesy, the new Bessa

and the new 40 1.4 looks like a great setup. And the Nokton 1.5 shot posted

by Skip looks really good, with a nice feel to the OOF. As does the pre

aspherical Lux shot by David. Choices, choices! This is going to be a hard

one. Here's a test shot I made recently which is a kind of equivalent to a 50

1.4 I suppose:<div></div>

I'm a working pro and frankly, I'm amazed that Sinar didn't tank a long time

ago. Great equipment, obscenely priced. Now, ten thousand dollar systems

dedicated to dig. work may be the answer, and may not. Their new platform

looks fantastic, but is it worth it to me to replace my Fuji 680 system for the

slight advantages? I've always hoped for a little common practicality from

Sinar, but I quit holding my breath long ago.