karl_borowski

Thanks guys.

Well, with people shooting 2,500 shots PER WEDDING with digital cameras, they will hit the failure point in just FORTY WEDDINGS, which, for some wedding photographers is one year or less of work. Don't get me wrong, 100,000 is a lot, but not if you're a fool and fire off shots like there is no tomorrow.

Funny, by my thinking, it takes 15GB to store 250 exp., but then again I'm not a 2-bit photojournalist with no minimum standards. To each his own, I guess.

 

Thanks for the info guys. Lol. I guess I should have bought an F3 ;-) Maybe my father working at NASA could get me leverage enough to steal one of theirs. I haven't seen a NASA picture from a space mission that was originated on film dated after 2003. If that's because of the Columbia incident or their complete discontinuance of film usage I'm not sure, though I do remember seeing a photo from a recent mission that had film cassettes and cameras in it (though no 100-foot backs).

30-40% posed shots per wedding. It gets higher with bigger groups, where I'll shoot more shots of the same pose to try to minimize blinks or distracted glances/broken posing by bridesmaids and groomsmen.

 

Shooting 5500 images per wedding is totally quixotic. You all realize that most shutters are only rated to 100,000, maybe 150,000 cycles. So, good job! you've just up more than 5% of your camera's rated shutter life in one evening! 2,000 shots per wedding isn't much better, that's 50 weddings, for some people one year, before you run into the real possibility of shutter failure in that camera. Of course, if you're shooting with multiple cameras, then 1500 to 2000 isn't so bad. I tend to shoot around 350-400 shots per wedding. If I were shooting digitally, maybe 500 tops would totally satisfy me as to getting everything I wanted. Now that I've switched over from roll film to bulk 70mm and perhaps long roll 35mm soon too, I'll be able to get the same costs for 350-400 shots shooting 500-600 frames of film, so that's ultimately the number I feel I will end up at when I get to the point where I've done enough work to enter the $2000+ wedding bracket.

Yes, but it wasn't a high-selling product. It was called, I believe, MB-24 or something. I think it was one digit higher than the designation for the LCD/control imprinting back if MB-24 isn't the correct number. I have the booklet with the designation at home. I'll post it tomorrow if I can find it tonight.

Hi everyone. I have purchased a Nikon F4, more for snapshots than for

weddings, as I've fallen in love with the Mamiya RB workflow, but this is

certainly going to be my go-to camera for back-up-back-ups and candid

photography at weddings. I may even try to get a 250 exp back to minimize

reload time. I've gone to all 70mm on my RB stuff, and the 40-50 exp. loads I

use certainly do help minimise the stress of constantly checking that either

the main or backup shooter has enough shots for a certain moment before having

to reload.

 

While I hate shooting anything other than primes for controlled wedding

portraiture, I think having a fast zoom would be a good idea. Is there a good

all-around zoom for film-only that is significantly cheaper now that digital

has destroyed the 35mm full-frame market? I'm looking for fast glass that is

an "all-around" lens for wedding work. I don't mind shooting with fill flash,

but it'd also be nice to have the option to have a lens that will work also in

available light, such as F/2.8.

 

Also, I would appreciate comments with regard to the pros and cons of primes

and zooms for the candid area of photography, or at least what some of the

ways are to get the best of both, through multiple bodies or what have you.

I.e. what equipment would you have out in the church in terms of focal length

as opposed to the reception and the posed pictures.

 

If it's any help, I shoot Portra-II 160NC entirely in my 35mm bodies. Before

I was going around with an old, all-manual Minolta with a 28mm F/2.8, 50mm

F/1.8, 135mm F/3.5 and a 100-200 F/4.5-5.6 zoom, though I tended to usse the

28- and 135mm lenses the most.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl Borowski

All I can find in the archives are references to F3 backs. Does anyone know

where I can get a 250-exp. back for my F4 without spending a fortune for it?

 

Regards,

 

~KB

Portra-II 160NC is currently the best neg film out on the market with regards to skin tones, grain, and tonal range. You will not get better results from any Fuji offering. I'd be happy to show you some 17MB samples from a shoot I did back in April if you email me. It's on 6x7cm, and not the most exciting stuff, just headshots, but you can really see the sharpness, smooth tones, and neutral color fidelity that this film is an industry standard for.

 

Regards,

 

~KB

Sorry for the late reply, Tri-X 320 in MF for a slightly gritty image, Pan-F 50 for crystal-clear B&W. Some people say that, since there is no real grain in a chromogenic film, that the Kodak 400-speed chromogenic film, forget the name, is the finest-grained film on the market, less grainy than T-Max 100 despite the two stops of extra speed.

 

Regards,

 

~KB

Sorry you don't shoot the bulk of your weddings on film. It's certainly more deserving than being reduced to a "sideshow status", but as far as labs go, what I don't process on my own equipment I outlab to TPI Photo in Youngstown Ohio. Very good service, never questionable quality or shoddy results. They're actually on Kodak's website as part of their processing quality control auditing program.

 

They also still offer optical printing, if you actually want to get fine details that you pay so much more for in shooting medium format film. After all, you're kind of wasting 6cm-wide film by only getting digital 5x5 in. prints from it. They are much better with their results than what you'd get from a "semi-pro" lab like Dodd or Cord Camera, whom I used before acquiring my own machinery when time was an issue. With the lesser quality labs you can get lower prices, but you run into stuff like scratches and improper replenishment. Consistancy is what you're paying the extra money for.

Hey, where are you located? If you're nearby, I do reselling for equipment of this sort. If you're reasonable in that resale value is less than 1% of your purchase cost, you can find buyers for this sort of stuff, but it does take time.

 

Most colleges here either have their own HOPE or Kreonite processors already or use trays. They aren't interested in printers or volume printing, just processing, and usually just for paper. They also usually either have an arrangement with a local E-6 processor or have their own Wing Lynch or comparable E-6 machines.

 

These guys just don't need the stuff. They either already have it or don't have it because they are too small to need such high-volume machinery. Some colleges still do tray-processed RA-4.

Steve, not knocking people like you that have no choice but to hoard in the face of their favorite product being discontinued, I'm knocking the amateurs/"weekend professionals" that buy the stuff for projects and end up never using it, which make up too large a chunk of internet posters. Afterall, they've no real urge to go out and actually shoot pictures, so they have plenty of time to park their buts in front of the internet and post their "professional" opinions. . .

 

I see that Kodak isn't currently, or maybe never offered UC in 220, must be thinking of one of their prior color films. Anyway, I will add my amount of UC, doubled for 120 format to whatever anyone else can speculate they consume in a year, when getting in touch with Eastman Kodak about this.

 

From what I've heard, the standard policy is either 10,000 feet, or $10,000 for the minimum special order. I guess it'd be about the same working with 60mm-wide film in terms of $1 being about the cost of 1 foot of film, so figure that's going to require us to put together at least 4,000 ro. of UC, certainly not impossible if I can get more responses. I'm sure there are a lot more users out there that are keeping quiet.

 

~Karl

As far as I am aware, Kodak only makes two flavors of amateur paper, Kodak Edge Generations and Kodak Royal Generations. I think they're pretty similar, Royal just having a thiciker base. If they changed the writing on the bottom or the thickness slightly, that really has no effect on the quality of image. And you're going to run into emulsion "improvements" no matter what, as they continue to optimize papers more and more for digital exposure (so far it hasn't really hurt optical characteristics though, at least from my experience with Edge Generations and opposed to Edge 8, its predecessor).

 

I think the problem you're having is that they're scanning the negative and lasering it onto paper. I've had the distinct displesure of having a roll of 110 done that way, about 5 yrs. ago, and it was not worth taking the pictures almost the prints were so bad.

 

Find a lab that still prints optically. They'll be using an older machine, there were Kodak Gretags, Konica made machines for APS, and there were several others. You're in a really tight jam because it has to have been made at least in the early '90s so there could at least be the possibility of an *adaptor" for APS available.

 

Regards,

 

~KB

Frankly, with Kodak's "we won't say 'til we fvcking run out" policy, the kid at the 1-hour photo is a more reliable source of information.

 

Thanks for being straight with your consumer base Kodak. We appreciate it!

I'm trying to see if there's enough interest to get Kodak to change their

minds with regards to their discontinuing it in MF. If they're still coating

it in 35mm, they can still cut it to size for us too. If anyone here shoots a

good volume of the stuff in a year, please indicate how much, so we can see if

anything can be done to change the Big K's mind on this one. . .

 

~KB

Yeah, Pentax is apparantly the best "true" 645 for film flatness, with Mamiya being the worst. IDK if a digital back on either of them would change anything, but it has something to do with how well the connection between back and body would be in addition to, in the case of fiml, how tightly it is wound and how it is held in place during the exposure.

I have a 616, but I'd never use it, except for vintage stuff. I'd probably just buy a roll from Film For Classics in that case, a little pricey, but save the hastle. THey used to spool it from Plus-X, which was perfect, but unfortunately I guess they don't meet Kodak's minimum anymore. It would be quite possible that we could hook up with them to meet the minimum order for Plus-X 70mm, which gives a very vintage look, IMO.

 

The reason I'm interested in 70mm perf is, again, I seldom, if ever, shoot 616. Most of the work I do is for clientele. I'd love to get an offer to shoot a prom in B&W or a themed dance, but people simply don't care for options that don't allow them to get it in color too, which means it's Portra or nothing in the 100-foot back. 100-foot backs are obviously not meant to be hand held shooting wedding candids, so in those cases, I am "forced" to settle for 45-55 shots in a 70-mm perfed back. Really, I don't think Efke or Kodak or anyone else making this sh it should care either way. WHat's it to them perfing 100-feet of film, 20 seconds of their time? I'm sure the machine that does it is an automated, idiot-proof model.

Yeah, Kodak still makes a lot of 70mm, most special order. I don't think you need to find some small boutique E. European company to get 70-mil, we need to get Kodak to lower their prices to reasonable (around $100/ro, hell make it 90 since we're buying so much of it) with a 100-ro order.

 

I'm trying to get more perfed stuff made, like Kodak 400NC and maybe some Tri-X and T-Max 400. E100G would be good too.

Weren't Memory Mates optical composites on photo paper? I don't think they were ever done by offset printing. so I don't you mean by cardboard-style.

This is from medfmt.8k.com, noticeably outdated, but the list looks pretty definitive and authoritative, so I won't question its validity:

 

Mamiya 645 Super/Pro/SV/SVX pack.

 

 

 

Advantages:

 

Aftermarket lens adaptors readily available to mount H'blad and entacon/Exacta lenses (step down only).

Well integrated AE lock/spot metering options with AE finders.(best 645 SLR)

Fully modular with full interlocks.

Fastest available lens series in MF (best 645).

largest available lens series in MF and/or 645 (best 645)

APO lens series are the finest available in 645(best 645).

Fairly small and light.

Nicely balanced with most lenses.(best 645)

Not too bad mirror slap/shutter noise.

645 Super accessories are fully functional and almost identical to newer

645 Pro ones.(best 645)

Three motor options, two of which are current.(best 645)

SV and SVx packs are comparatively inexpensive.

Holds its value well on the used market.

1/1000th sec. top speed.

Best integration of leaf and focal plane shutter systems in 645 (best 645)

Disadvantages:

 

Requires accessory for mechanical cable release.(worst 645)

All models are battery dependent.

Very Plasticky (worst of the MF slr systems), with a flash molded plastic

plate serving as back-to-body interface (on the critical mating face of the roll backs).(worst 645)

Worst film flatness in MF due to lightly sprung insert system.(worst 645)

Finicky spring tabs (to interchange backs and inserts).(worst 645)

Poor metering capabilities when using the N/L leaf shutter lens series.

1 stop exposure compensation required when using 300mm/longer lenses in

averaging meter mode. (switch to spot as it doesn't require compensation).(worst 645)

Inserts are fragile and obviously dinky.(worst 645)

Motors are comparatively loud.

No TTL Autoflash.(worst 645)

Expensive.(worst 645).

55mm and 80 2.8 lenses have flimsy plastic barrels.

 

Pentax 645/Pentax 645N AF.

 

Advantages:

 

Ability to operate most Ptx 67 lenses with full auto diaphragm operation. (best 645)

Most consistently excellent lens series in 645 (IMO).(best 645)

Quietest shutter/mirror/motor in any MF SLRs.(best 645)

Best dollar value of any 645 camera or lens series.(best 645)

120 macro is the only currently available MF macro that achieves 1:1 without tubes (though Mamiya has announced a new 120 APO macro that does this as well).

Supplied with Motor and AE prism standard.(best 645)

Best 35mm wide angle in 645.(best 645)

Smallest and lightest 645 SLR (best 645)

Only 300/4 EDIF in 645 which, along with the beautiful 600 5.6 EDIf are the least expensive APO tele's in 645.(best 645)

Insert system is quick to change/load, well sprung and well built.

Inexpensive to buy and with good film flatness as well.

Only 645 system w shutter preferred and program modes.(best 645)

TTL Autoflash.

All metal lens barrels have silky smooth action.(best 645)

OEM 70mm back option. (best 645)

Single mechanical shutter speed.

1/1000th sec. top speed

Holds its value well on the used market.(best 645)

Pentax 645N AF advantages:

include all of the above Ptx 645 advantages.

3 point and spot predictive AF with FA lens series(best 645)

Auto bracketing (best 645)

matrix metering (best 645)

Spot metering

2fps motor (best 645)

data imprint on film edge (best 645)

Dial contrlled shutter speeds and exposure compensation

Focus confirmation light (best 645)

finder info below image

Memory lock button

Manual metering scale

 

 

Disadvantages:

 

No finder or motor interchangeability. (worst 645)

No AE lock option. (worst 645) [see note]

Kepplerian finder must be dead centered on your eye and is hard to use when wearing glasses.

Leaf lenses limited to 75 and 135mm focal lengths and cancel any meter

function.(worst 645).

Plasticky body panels.

Finder eyepiece is vulnerable and fragile.

Polaroid back is aftermarket only, requires a dedicated body and costs well

over $1100 (worst 645)

 

I'm still looking for the best flatness 645 camera. Rollei is supposedly the best film flatness MF short of a vacuum back, but let me find 645. . . Looks like the Rollei 6000 in 6x45 mode (it's really a 6x6cm, but looks enough like a 645 in form and function) has the best film flatness, but Pentax does get a plus there, meaning it's probably second best among 2 1/4 x 1 3/4 cameras.

Troy Ammons:

 

"Also I was not pleased with the P645 film flatness.

 

If you scan with an Epson you can knock that # way down."

 

I'm surprised that you'd say this. I have heard the Pentax has far better film flatness and that the Mamiya 645 is the one with the problems. All 1- and 220 films have some issues with this. Probably you'd want a 70mm back with 160NC for perfect flatness. IDK if anyone can afford the minimum order that'd be necessary for slide film in 70.

 

Also, I think 5-6 MP is a bit low. I'd say, judging by testing of lenses and LP/mm, you can get about 16 megapixels out of a 35mm slow slide film. That's really not that much of a strecth. Yeah, they're 16 grainy megapixels, but there's that much detail being resolved, not 1/2 that. Isn't there another MF camera that is really good for flatness in 645 (and I still swear I saw good reviews of Pentax on the 'net somewhere, couldn't say for sure as I shoot Mamiya RBs)? I have heard the Pentax 67 has excellent flatness too. Let me see if that article is still floating around in cyberspace somewhere. . .

When in doubt, test it out. . .

Just as you can hand-hold a Mamiya RB, so too can you mount a Mamiya 7 on a tripod. Hell, your tripod may be greatful!

*Playboy Photographer* ;-)

Doug: I was under the impression that the pictures were solely for the printed directory, that everyone gets, with maybe a set of 4x5s. If you're selling prints though, sure I can see making a sales pitch there to try to up your orders.

 

No need to apologize, I want to enter into this field in a couple of years. Well, the one lab I'm thinking of doing business with charges $1.10/8x10U, so I wouldn't even break even if I were charging $2.50 for three units (still shoot split 70mm too, as a rule)with packaging, film, shipping, and my time it'd probably cost at least $5.00 for a 3U package. I have the machinery to make package prints, but I make about $5/hour when I figure out the amount of time I put into printing jobs. Granted it's easier with steady lighting to shoot a whole big group of people and then print all the negatives at the same density and filter pack, but with weddings making color prints (by hand) absolutely KILLS my hourly rate, so I'm wary of bidding that low and trying to make the machinery work that efficiently right off the bat. I'm going back to letting the labs handle some of this, and hopefully $1.10 - $3 per 80 sq. in. will cut it when it comes to making profits.

 

It's interesting that you say the big studios throw out those low-ball bids, because it was actually Life Touch that was the *highest*-priced studio on the list I saw, by 20-30%.

 

I guess if you have a school of 2000, you could probably turn a healty profit even if it were $7 for a 2U package, but I think $8-10/U is a pretty fair price. I know studios that charge $60-120 for the same area. For custom printed wedding pictures I only charge$25/U, so 1/3 of that doesn't seem half bad, especially when I know studios that were charging over $10 a decade ago.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl