nikos peri

<p>www.fotomatica.it<br>

http://www.fotomatica.it/index1.html?lang=it&lmd=39827.690544</p>

Ah, well now I actually have found the Article itself...

Good reading, thanks. I look forward to how this develops.

Ok, I'll come out from at least a year of silence to play for a worthy cause.

This post/forum/photo does not deserve to remain ignored.

For one, it's a gripping portrait that draws me in - that expression the young mother is pulling is what may have inspired the casting director of Amelie Poulain!

For another, it does illustrate my first impression of my Holga. I was quite frankly suprised by what a GOOD camera it actually was! The result were in fact too close to "perfectionist" photography (as in, someone taking their camera seriously) to be understood as being intentionally LOMO. This is, quite frankly, too sharp, too focused, too good to play the "I used a pinhole/shoebox to make ART" card. I think it just shows how good a portrait one CAN take when not taking everything too seriously.

As to the film choice, can not comment as I have never tried it. I am looking forward though, to the rest of the silver halide series!

Thanks for keeping it alive.

Hmmm... the PWII kit (two transceivers) came with the mini cables and jack adaptors. Even batteries were included!

Found one, although not terribly recent.<div></div>

I have done my fair share of these. FWIW, I will most often get AF to lock onto the skier once he is up and out of the water, still behind the boat. Then, I'll switch the lens to manual for the rest of the pass. I repeat the process at nearly every pass (switching back onto AF to focus) as the moving and bumping around can move focus off (and my skiers usually shorten the rope after each pass).<p>

For f-stop, if your lens is sharp enough, try staying one stop from wide open. For one, this will help you keep your shutter speed fast enough (and you really want very fast!) and for another, your backgrounds will be pleasantly OOF. From the boat I use an 80-200mm at around 90-100mm on a Nikon digital, and I'm usually at f/4.<p>

Interestingly, looking through my waterski shots here I realize that none posted are from the boat! It's an angle you easily get bored with I guess.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=506720

I stumbled against the minimum focus distance on the Sonnar 150mm for head and shoulders. I like to crop closely, and I'm talking small people (kids), so I just couldn't get in close enough without the 16mm extension ring. That seems to work for me, although careful about perspectives when you're that close in.<p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4163942-lg.jpg">150mm Sonnar and 16mm Ext</a>

and this time... WITH a photo! ;-)<div></div>

Bike... Italian style

Aaaaargh!!!!!! I hate this feature! For the love of God... can we get a Preview function that

includes the attachment?! What am I doing wrong... maybe pixel width; not caption, not file

size...<div></div>

Darn... the inline thing, again!<div></div>

NHM later that same day...<div></div>

150mm Sonnar and 16mm extension

Look for Fidelity 4x5" double film holders. One holder, two darkslides and two sheets of

film.<br>

A 90mm lens, on a Sinar-type (check, I'm not sure about this one for the Calumet) lens board

would get you a similar angle of view.

Yes. And in the long run... YES!<p>

For example, one 1 liter bottle of HC110 will develop for me 100 rolls of film. That works

out to 30 cents a roll roughly. Then fix will cost a couple cents per roll. A changing bag, a

tank and your film is done. Enlargers are very cheap now, two of mine were free in

exchange for my picking them up and removing them.<p>

Cost of printing is a more variable and personal thing, depending upon whether you use

fibre paper or RC, how many test prints you go through until you are happy, toning,

etc.<p>

But in any case, you will come out financially miles ahead than through a lab. But more

importantly, you may find the process will enrich you in many ways.<p>

"They are Hasselblad products made by Hasselblad, in Sweden."<p>

I thought for the digital side, it was more "They are Imacon products made by Imacon... in Denmark." Or at least the backs... but I'm guessing.

Ditto: you want the B60-67mm adaptor and then you can use any of the bog-standard (and cheap) filters. Doesn't vignette on my 50mm. <p>

Also, in a pinch, I have had filters cut and mounted into the first filter ring I could find. Nearly any optician can do it for you, and you can then locate the filter ring and cut down any larger UV filter.

Very nice. Where is that first shot? The B&W one?

Sperlonga - Later on that same game...<div></div>

Sperlonga - Calcetto<div></div>

Sorry Nick, I'm not an outlet at all. I have the scanner which sits unused, so I might as well sell it.

I have a Nikon Coolscan V which is not getting any use since I got an Imacon Flextight as I

started shooting larger film formats. It has the slide feeder as well as the negative strip

feeder, but packaging has been thrown out. Works perfectly well, and is now in Italy. Bought

it new from Camera Warehouse in the UK.

1) Your understanding of soft and hard is correct. I don't know what Coking filters you have... but presumably if you bought them, you knew why you needed them, right?<p>

2) 0.3 or 0.9 refers to the density of the filter. One stop equals 0.3 density.<p>

3) With color photography, there is the danger that the grey is not entirely neutral acorss the entire color spectrum. Some people get very touchy about slight casts. <p>

4) Lee<p>

5) Yes. Scratching the filter/lens, moving the lens, having light hit the backside of the filter and reflect into the lens, dropping the filter, inaccurate placement of the transition... Of course, in case of dire need, one does what one must do!

The larger the format of film, the lesser the depth of field you achieve at a given f-stop. So, if you need f/22 to keep your desired DOF on a 35mm format film, you will need f/64 to do so on 4x5" (not exactly true, but that's the gist).<p>

Don't have it underhand, but search for "DOF calculator" and you have some interesting websites that simulate what you get by changing each parameter (distance, format, focal length, aperture, and the catch-all... circle of confusion)

Remember that the f-number is a ratio, not an absolute number. The larger format camera also takes a longer focal length lens to give the same angle of coverage on a larger slab of film. For example, a 50mm lens on 35mm film is standard - and diffraction is a risk at, say f/22. That means the aperture is 50mm/22=2.27mm. On 4x5" film, the standard lens is 150mm, so f/22 will lead to an opening of 6.82mm and present less diffraction.