scott_fleming1

I don't have any help for you on the photography questions but I would make darn sure

your family has the money to pay your ransom when you get kidnapped. You sound

like a perfect target to me.

Please talk to the folks at the State Department before you go. Perhaps they can save

you from yourself.

Wow Harry!

That was great.

One DOES wonder why they continue to put up with it .... and even to support it as

somehow superior.

Then there are those here who actually wish to emulate european socialism. A mystery

indeed.

James,

Enjoy your mold. It's a certainty.

Personally with my Zeiss lenses I ain't takin any chances.

Shower caps, baggies, towels, ..... whatever it takes.

It's weird I know. We used to live in a world where taking pictures was .... nothing.

Nobody noticed and nobody cared. That world is gone. Not to return in our lifetimes.

Well ..... I had a Mamiya Pro TL which I bought on ebay with three great lenses. I liked it

a lot. It worked well. But in anticipation of working up someday to a good digital back I

sold it on ebay and stepped up to a Contax AF. With the money I got from the Mamiya and

three lenses I bought a brand spanking new 35mm Zeiss Distagon to go along with the

80mm which came on the Contax kit. God I love this camera. This kit makes me want to

use it like no kit I've ever owned. (presently I have a 10D, an EOS 3, a Toyo 45 AII with

three lenses to die for and once I owned a Canon G5 for two weeks)

For me this is the perfect camera. When I can one day own a 22mp stand alone digital

back it will be a heavenly camera. ( I live 50mi. from a lab and hate the delay plus one

day I dream of owning my own epson 9600 and I hate scanning)

I've been buying and selling cameras for two years trying to find what works for me. It

worked. Now I can go on to perfecting my captures. Then I can worry about printing but

I don't even want to think about it right now.

It's a long sweet road. Enjoy the traveling. Don't get hung up on the destination right

now. For me finding the right camera was most important. One day I may concentrate

so directly on the best capture that I might, at least at times, have to rely on my 4 x 5.

To my mind finding the camera that really makes you want to use it (especially for us

amateurs) is the first thing. That's what's great about ebay. The photographers rental

outlet.

Personally I find most BB software pretty wanting. I don't want to horrify anyone but if

youj want to see a great setup go check out freerepublic.com. If you are not an extreme

right-wing conservative do not read anything there. I don't want you to smash your

computer. ;))

It IS the best software for the purpose I have ever seen. The 'brouse' page is a second by

second playback of every post entered. The whole page flips over about every six

minutes or so with a couple thousand posts per hour. You can mark any post you are

interested in by contributing some minimal post to a thread. This will put it in your

personal 'my threads' library that lasts forever.

It is also divided into topics and posts can be sorted by topics and interest. You never

have good threads slipping off an index page just because of their original posting date.

If it's a good thread it's at the top for as long as people are interested. It has a true

internal and powerful search feature where one can search by poster, topic, any word.

It's fully HTML enabled ... or not. Your choice. Has spell checker. Pager. Internal mail.

About twenty thousand active posters. Hot links allowed. Even encouraged. Pics can be

placed in any post.

I think they sell the shell but I'm sure it is expensive. FreeRepublic is free but runs a fund

drive four times a year and brings in around $300k a year.

Go here: http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=UBB24

Much info and discussion. There is also another page on their main board about 'other'

digital backs.

Also luminous-landscape.com has much discussion of backs and has posted articles.

Do a search from their main board. They have a discussion forum with a digital backs

page as well.

oh yeah,

You have to set the ISO to whatever film you are using. This is done with the ISO/TIME

button and the up and down arrow keys. Set it and then toggle the orange button to TIME.

When the screen says ISO no readings may be taken .... only setting of the ISO.

gotta add ....

You'll need to do some experimentation. I've had the best success metering the area in

the scene closest to 18% grey. In my landscapes this is usually some light green grass. If

you are shooting macro type shots of flowers you could have a hard time finding what's

akin to 18% reflectance. A grey card could help.

Also I never use the H (highlight) or S (shadow) function of my meter. Being a slow, low

grain, tranny shooter it's just too iffy. I always try and find the 18% reflectance area in

my scene (yes I use a card if necessary) and this gives me the highest percentage of

success.

Carl,

This is the spotmeter I use. couldn't justify the cost of a sekonic. Turn it on. Hit the

memory clear ( M-CLR) key to clear it. Toggle the orange ISO/Time button so the screen

says time. Take a reading on a midrange area of your subject. Punch the up or down

arrow keys untill you get the f/stop you want or near enough. Screen will give you your

shutter speed on right side. The exposure will render a neutral shot of the area you

meter.

If you want to take a reading off a highlight or a shadow area .... take the reading then

push the H or S key to get the proper exposure decrease or increase so your highlight or

shadow will NOT be rendered 18% grey.

You can also meter a whole scene by taking a reading on a highlight then hit the memory

(M) key. Then shoot a shadow and hit the M key again. You now have the spread in f/

stops shown on your screen. You can toggle the up and down arrows to get the f/stops

you want. (the whole range moves up and down the range)

You can also hit the A key to get the f/stop exactly half way between the low and high

on the screen. Bracket your shots either side of this average (A) to get low and high

key shots of your scene. (also known as placing the exposure in the 'zone' desired)

I'm sure you have released the latch. Hold the bottom of the camera in your left hand,

grasp the finder with your right and while holding the latch up with your thumb pull

straight back but don't jerk it. It IS tight. If it does not begin to slide back ... add a tad

of side to side twist as you pull back but only a little. If it does not slide back return it

to the shop where you bought it.

Thank you all. You have confirmed my hopes for the 35mm lens. Excellent information

and it truly helps me a lot.

Thank you Thank you Thank you

I'm the happy owner of a new (to me) Contax 645.

Due to the surprising response on e___ of the sale of my Mamiya Pro

TL kit (closes later today) it looks like I will have the money for

my first new lens.

Being mostly a landscape shooter I want to get a wide angle. I've

never used a 35mm on a MF system. My 45mm on the Pro TL was wide

enough as far as I could tell.

I'm not concerned about the difference in price between the Contax

35mm and 45mm. Is there any drawback the board members could tell

me about regarding the 35mm? Is the distortion noticibly worse than

the 45mm? Is it as contrasty and is the color as good as the 45mm?

Anything else?

Given all things being close to equal I plan to get the 35 as when I

want WA I want a lot of it.

Any help deeply appreciated.

My apologies to all for writing this worthless thread that generated 77 posts in three

days.

I won't bother you again for another six months or so. That's usually how long it takes

me to regain any interest in photo.net after a few days posting. The rain has stopped now

and I can go out and shoot in between slaving away for more equipment purchases.

I have no idea what I'm amassing cash for however. There is simply no way to see a

clear path for several months at least. In a way I'm peacefully and strangely happy to be

back to film and I really don't care which way the cookie crumbles. I'm greatful to have the

cameras and lenses I have and the refrigerator case at the lab always has lots of choices.

Thanks to all who contributed to this discussion.

uhhh .... 'Thanks' guys but I'm not miffed at the cost of cameras. It's untethered digital

backs I think are priced to destroy MF photography.

But of course those who enjoy breaking my cahones are not bothered by accuracy or truly

addressing my points .... but rather in jerking my chain.

I still maintain that Phase One is coluding with Kodak to rake in obscene profits and as

others have said on robgalbraith.com thus cut off the limb of the very tree supporting

them.

This of course will help catapult Canon into complete dominance of the professional

digital photography world and remember chain jerkers .... you helped them.

David,

I don't have a definitive answer for you. I could see a 10x enlargement of a 4 x 5 but I

haven't reached that stage of my journey yet. I'm sorting everything out. I get 'proofs' of

my better images done by machine print at my local lab at 11 x 14 0r 16. I've had crops

of 4 x 5 trannies done at 20 x 30.

My goal right now is really to simply study photography. Every shot I take is an

experiment. Somewhere down the road I will start to build a small portfolio. Maybe some

of the experiments will make it into that grouping.

I have several 'spots' I shoot all the time. I use different cameras and I shoot only in my

own locale. Especially the river on which I live. I especially look for exciting

atmospherics. I shoot lots of other things but just for fun.

One of these days, if I am successful in my own estimation at capturing what I can

envision, I will either open a gallery or rent space in an existing gallery or shop ( I live in a

tourist area) and hang my stuff up and see what others think. If people want to buy them

I'll sell them at any size they want to pay but for my own work ultimately I would like

about 40 by 50 inches.

I've been waiting to get a printer and had thought to get a Epson 4000. It would pay for

itself in a few months just for my proofing purposes. But I'm glad I waited. If I can't

surmount my fear of scanners I won't be needing a printer. As to the future and printing I

don't worry about it. If I show my pictures and people want to buy them I might decide to

just let the lab worry about all that. I'm just not that much of a purist. If the lab can make

me good enough reproductions of my images ( we ain't talking silver hallide B&W here) I

may never get into printing.

I guess if you love printing that's another thing or if you want to keep more of the price of

a print ..... I just want to make big images and sit back and look at a lot of em hanging

on white walls with proper lighting.

Jeffery,

See what happens when you post real photography on the web? The computer monitor is

just a proofing device to my mind. It can not do justice to large scenics. People post full

sized files that can be examined piece by piece for resolution and detail but in no way

can one 'see' what's really there. Many with dialup connections cannot even download a

large file. So ... posting one's treasures on the web is usually a dubious effort.

I would think all this is a given. I can't imagine someone thinking they could criticize

another's efforts from a little monitor sized facsimile of a real image.

It's really very simple Steve.

Digital capture is supperior to film. I won't argue this with you. I don't care if you

disagree. For me it is an undeniable truth.

With a histogram you can easilly nail the exposure and the only fiddling necessary on the

computer is a quick curves adjustment and a little sharpening.

Perhaps your problem with my presentation is that it has been an exploration of the

many variables. I have presented different variables that I will or may be forced to deal

with if MF digital capture is placed out of my reach. I have supposed that there are

others in the same boat. My posts have been an attempt to talk over the whole

situation with others dealing with the same situation.

I'm not writing articles here. I'm just working out a solution.

I hate scanning. I hate the idea of spending $10k for a decent scanner. I hate the price

of drum scans. It just seemed so simple and workable to me to get a MF digital solution

and it seemed worth up to $20k to me to do so. But not double that amount ( the

whole kit). Scanning is the pouring over the computer part I mentioned. Photoshopping

the occaisonal keeper is not 'pouring'.

Another problem I have that makes my photography less enjoyable is that my lab is

fifty miles away. It takes them a week to process my normal order (varried tasks).

That's four hours of travel (both ways, two trips) and a week of waiting. No fun at all.

A big part of why I prefer digital.

Now finally, your ill tempered near attacks on me for simply expressing and exploring

my ideas are foolish and uncalled for. Is this what you do in life? Denigrate and belittle

others for no good reason?

Thanks for all the good ideas and thoughtful replies.

No thanks for all the gripes. It's amazing to me that so many want to put me down for

putting up a thread that obviously raises so much interest.

I'm not broken hearted or falling apart that I have to shoot with film. I'm OK with it

because it's just a hobby although it's what I do. I make pictures and I go out and earn

money (non photographically) for equipment. That's it.

But I'd rather do it digitally and I think I have a legitimate gripe.

How anyone can disagree with my basic complaint is a wonder to me. $30,000.00 for a

digital back is such extreme madness that words fail me.

I can buy a new Dodge PU. Loaded. Cummins Diesel. Running boards and custom

bumpers. For $30,000.00.

Just take a minute to visualize a digital back sitting on the hood of a big .... loaded ....

Dodge Truck. Or if Trucks are not your thing .... how about a new Chevy Impalla or Buick

Electra .... loaded.

It's a sick situation and it would seem high dollar fashion and product photographers are

making so much money that price is just no object.

Obviously the back makers know how cut-throat competitive these people are and realize

they can play them and second tier professionals off against each other to market their

backs. Top tier photogs just don't care. They're millionairs many times over. Second

tier

photogs may be so worried their competitors will show up to a job with an H1 and P-25

and edge them out of a gig that they justify the astronomical price.

Actually I believe the manufacturers are painting themselves into a corner. They will be

forced to drastically drop the price if they want to survive. Obviously they plan to rake in

the max profit the first year but then, I wuld suspect, there will me NO sales unless they

halve the price. So you've wizzed off your best customers. (or perhaps early adopters

have been conditioned to accept this level of abuse)

I didn't cry years ago at the price of Kodak digital cameras. It was a brand new industry

and I just ignored it. But this is price fixing fo the worst ilk. I think a revolt is in order.

David,

Rant? Is it your opinion that this board is just to ask questions like "Can I put a Hasselblad

lens on my Mamiya Super? Or, Which Hoga should I get?"

If you don't like my instituting discussions about current photography trends .... please

feel free to not read them.

I think we all might be better off if the manufacturers of digital backs knew how we felt.

These prices are an outrage and absolutely impossible to justify. Those who's business

can amortize the expense are not doing themselves any favors by laying down as docile

lambs at the wolf's door.

I'll see if I can talk to all those who have raised a civil point or attempted to carry on a

decent discussion.

Mike. $15k to $30k pricetag for a MF digital back kills it for 99.99% of all those who use

MF. It's dead to me that's for sure and it may kill it altogether.

Ellis. I appreciate your help and suggestions. I know you are right but I just have this

giant reluctance. I just gotta stew about it some more. If I must I must. As to the

opinions of those on that thread. I guess they're in the one onehundredth of one percent.

Hope they can keep the monopolists at bay.

Peter. At $30k a back when the 1Ds solution is nearly as good for so much less I don't

think the infrastructure of MF digital capture can survive. Film is more secure, to my mind

than I had thought a few months ago.

Michael. The anger is because I made an assumption and got sucked in. I spent a year

experimenting and learning digital for not nearly so good a reason as I thought. The

prices of larger format digital capture are beyond all reason. Senseless. Stupid. Digital is

a better way to make pictures for me. I really wanted to make my sorts of pictures with

digital capture. But it ain't gonna happen. Sorry but this ticks me off. I refuse to

compromise and make small pictures. I'm glad for those who don't give a whit for digital

and like film. I envy them actually. Perhaps it is that I was not all that good a

photographer and digital capture made me a better one. Goodness knows it was easier.

As to the rate of success with digital versus film I should think that is self esplanatory.

Easier to shoot more with digital and thus get more keepers and just the histogram itself

pretty much insures proper exposure.

Peter. What if tomorrow you woke up to the news that cars were going to cost ten times

what they presently do? You'd be pretty mad, right? Well my photography means almost

that much to me.

Emotionally it means a lot more than ANY car. I don't need photography to live so of

course its not the same. Yes, at heart, I am unhappy at the cost of MF digital backs. I

am unhappy with the cost of a 1Ds but it makes sense to me. Phase One's prices make no

sense. It is an outrage.

There is a VERY informative thread on this issue ove on robgalbraith.com

http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?

Cat=&Number=239254&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

If this is a subject that interests you it is well worth reading.

Below is my post to this thread which is the latest post on the thread right now. It sums

up my personal thoughts on the future of digital .... FOR ME. Your mileage may vary.

This whole thing (capped off by this thread) has been a hard punch in the gut for me. I

don't think it has dawned on most avid photography enthusiasts/amateurs who have

flirted with digital capture yet. I only had a 10D but it took me away from film for a whole

year. I believed digital capture was the future. Scanning has always turned me off and I've

avoided it. I invested a year with digital because I 'knew' it was the future and I needed to

learn it.

I now see that digital capture beyond 35mm is a complete dead end. It's over! For the

foreseeable (imaginable) future at least. I would have to go the 1Ds route now. It is the

only possibility. I could do it. I have the money but most in my league do not. But I loathe

the format for what I really want to do.... which is large print landscape work. I guess I'll

just have to substantially downgrade what 'large' means to me now if I want to stay with

digital capture ..... AND hope that Canon can come up with a decent WA lens.

I really dreamed of the day I could get a full frame 645 digital back. I figured I was maybe

two years away from it. I mean that was my plan and I was ready to spend $20k to get

there. Figured I'd pick up good used equipment. Even if that meant forgetting my own

printing for a few years (not enough $ for a truly large format printer after buying

expensive kit ). But all that is OVER. It's not even a dream.

I'm angry about this. I'm shooting film again. I'm on the way to the printer now to have

$500 worth of prints made (just large proofs really) . This is money that was being saved

for my own digital solution of the future. I'm simply going to quit fretting about all this

and let the lab do what labs do .... I don't really want to do it all anyway (the ugly fine print

of the digital contract). I like to make images not pour over a computer screen hour after

hour.

Maybe it's a good thing. I don't know exactly what I will do. For now I'm determined once

again to master my 4 x 5 equipment and just forget about histograms and Photoshop. It's

hard. All that control and the ability to breathe life into marginal prints was enthralling.

But really only because I was shooting for that dream of 645 full frame and 22 MP. (or

more)

I'll just spend my 'digital money' for the occaisonal drum scan and more large prints from

the lab.

I'm disheartened by taking what seems like many steps backward but I can still make the

good images (I do get one now and then) with transparencies. The digital world now

seems like an affair I had with a Siren but now it just seems an ugly episode. Just a bad

taste left in the mouth. But I had to have the affair to know what I now know.

Perhaps some new tech we can only imagine will come along (Foveon?) and turn the 35mm

imaging chip into three times the size file we think is normal now? Then at least we could

crop to something like a decent ratio and print to 30 x 40.

Post Extras: ? ? ?