mark_tucker2

Boy, I *really* blew it now, didn't I...? The photo of the woman in Quito is gone, and now

the red fabric picture is up, (but tomorrow, it'll be something else).

Nobody sent me an email, but my Stats showed a whole lot of activity here. Thought I'd

see what all the fuss was about.

Let me tell you, it's pretty surreal to read a bunch of text, conjuring up Conspiracy

Theories about how you shot a simple picture. I wish I could take more credit for some

elaborate lighting scheme, when, in fact, I simply saw that woman sitting on the stoop in

Old Town Quito, and walked up and asked her if I could photograph her. (Do you really

think that I'd travel to Ecuador, and walk around with lights strapped to my back....? Ha). It

was simply available light, probably pretty top lit from the alleyway, shot with a 50 1.4

wide open, on a 1DsII. Nothing fancy whatsoever. Even worse, it was my assistant's 50,

because, like a lamebrain, I left the hotel with what I thought was the 45 on the body,

when in fact, it was the 24TS. (No way to shoot a portrait like that with a 24). So when I

saw her amazing face, I borrowed Roger's 50. So don't give me too much credit; I can even

remember to mount the right lens on my body... The texture, like someone said, was done

in post, using another photograph that I'd shot the day before, of some funky textured

wall, and just blended the two. Again, nothing fancy.

My formula for a good picture: the LEAST amount of photo crap possible; a good pair of

shoes; and, whenever possible, an airline ticket. And in this case, a translator/assistant.

I just stick these quickie pictures up, on the front of my site, as I'm working on them.

Hopefully the full Ecuador chapter will be up by early January.

MT, http://www.marktucker.com<div></div>

How 'bout this one:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?

ViewItem&category=30077&item=3852932709&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

And whoever outbids me is in trouble!

My goodness. Now THERE is a sentence that makes me realize that I'm not shooting 35

digital: "f12 won't give you too much depth of field..."!

We're not in Kansas any more, Toto.

(I can't imagine that I could focus at f12, but maybe it's possible).

Also, in general, what are the best sources to try to actually find and BUY an oddball lens/

shutter such as this? eBay? Are there guys that specialize in selling funky old lenses like

this?

Thank you all very much. After thinking about this more, I think that I'll also shoot a great

deal with my HMI, and if so, I'd like to shoot relatively wide open for no depth. I'd like to

go just long enough to avoid that wompiness that you get, when you stick a Deardorff too

close into someone's face. Similar to the womp of, say, a 50 on a Canon; it's just too short.

Also, I'd like something in a modern shutter, where you can easily and quickly have a lever

to open and close the lens. Nothing worse than trying to shoot spontaneously, of people,

with a lens that requires two steps to get it opened and closed. It would be great if the

glass itself was funky, but I'd love to be able to mount it in a modern shutter.

It sounds like I need between a 450 and a 600. Is there something like that, that would go

into a modern shutter?

I have a new (old) Deardorff 8x10, and want to start a new portrait project, shooting tight

faces. I am looking for a portrait lens that would equate to an 85mm lens on a Canon;

slightly longer than normal. Would love to find something fast-ish, for bright ground glass

focusing; I'll be shooting indoors with strobe. Am I correct in assuming that 400-450

would equate to an 85 in 35? Is there anything out there that's fast? Say, maybe 5.6 or

faster? Am I dreaming...? Thank you.

MT, http://www.marktucker.com

i brought barry into nashville several years ago to do a weekend workshop for

photographers and graphic designers. i recommend him highly. nice that he's

also a photographer, so he's got the right sensibilities, and real-world

experience. Theory is fine and good, but real world street experience goes a

long way in my book.

Mark Tucker, http://www.marktucker.com

I bought a 2450 to scan my 4x5 BW negs, and you MUST buy the

full version of SilverFast 6AI, in order to max out the scanner. The

Epson driver is just plain bad.

Just fork out the $150 for the Silverfast before you judge the

scanner.

And, in addition to that, how much room do you have to complain,

when the scanner is only three hundred bucks? You've got to

have your expectations in the realistic level. If it's that bad, buy a

$14,000 Imacon flatbed, and THEN see how you feel about the

Epson; you might be quite satisfied with it.

Just my opinion.

Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com/sanmiguel/

This whole chapter was scanned with the 2450 and silverfast

6AI.

Marc,

Those 14n images are shockingly bad. Bad models, bad light,

bad files. There is a rumor that some photographer in Japan

uploaded a bunch of images from his 14n, and they're light years

better. They're linked from somewhere in the Kodak DCS section

of:

http://www.robgalbraith.com

Also, for what it's worth, here is my completely unscientific test, of

Canon 1Ds vs. Hasselblad 110F2, shot at f2, with FP4, PlusX,

and PortraBW; all in 220. 1Ds was shot at 70mm setting at 2.8.

USM has been run on the Canon file. Film was scanned with

Imacon Photo.

http://www.likeaduckinanoose.com/digital/master.jpg.sit

Windows users might need to find Stuffit Expander for Windows,

to decompress. Make sure and view file at 100%.

-MT

I used the NPC back to shoot 4x5 Readyloads in my Fuji 680

version I and II. I am not sure about the III, but can't imagine there

would be a problem.

On the other issue, just be reminded that obviously, ONLY the

front standard moves; the rear back is fixed. So it's in no way a

view camera...

I'm not sure if it's completely medically ethical or not, and maybe

you guys can comment. When I went to eye doctor for the exam, I

thought he'd sit me down in a chair and move that optical bench

thing up in front of me. But instead, he sat me down at his 23"

Apple Cinema Display, turned down the lights, and had me

complete this alternative exam. Once I found the proper

spectacle strength (+2.00), I scored a nineteen out of twenty:

http://storm.prohosting.com/davech/implants.html

When I went to the eye doctor two years ago for the first time, he

looked at me solemnly, asked me to sit down, (I already was),

and he told me, "Mark, the formal term for your disease is called

Forty-itis". Then, he handed me a tissue. <P>

The way he described it, some (very few) parts of the body

continue to grow for your entire life. These would include your

ears, your nose, and the lens in your eyes. (Why couldn't it have

been <B>other</b> parts of my body?) He said that, at about

forty, most people's lenses have reached a growth thickness that

makes it difficult for the muscles in the eye to move the lens

either close enough, or far enough, to bring close up things into

focus. Therefore you need reading glasses. I am about to hit 44,

and my prescription is about a 2.25.<P>

Another word of caution: just before Christmas, I went back for

another eye exam, and for once, I said "No more ten dollar cheap

reading glasses! My eyes are too important to cut corners!" So I

got the exam and broke down and bought the expensive, "real"

glasses. They sold me the "progressive" lenses, that focus near

and far, but they were the WORST thing I've ever seen; I had to tilt

my head so far back to get to the reading part of the lens that I'd

damn near get vertigo when reading the menu. And then, if you'd

pan your head left and right, like you might do in the real world,

you get this "fisheye" kind of distortion. I returned them the next

day, and the fashiony women in high heels and nose rings rolled

their eyes at me, and insisted that "I'd get used to them". No way.

So they put normal reading lenses in them. $350 for normal

reading glasses, when I could have bought another three sets at

Walgreens for twenty bucks. So, live and learn.<P>

Another issue: in the MF list, a Hasselblad repairman

commented that Hasselblad had determined that when you look

thru the Hassie camera, the distance that you need to see well is

FIVE FEET. IOW, get yours eyes tested for five feet, and either set

your diopter for that, or get glasses that let you see well at five

feet. (Who knows why five feet, but that's what he said).<P>

Sorry for the long ramble. Obviously, I have some eye issues that

have gone unresolved in therapy.<P>

The other telltale sign of this disease is when you start

monkeying with the TEXT ZOOM feature of Internet Explorer, and

you start running it at 150%!<P>

-MT, http://www.marktucker.com

Bailey,

Yes, you are technically correct. Yet, with a shoot rate of one

frame every FIVE seconds, plus it being tethered, plus no screen

for review, plus it's probably twenty grand, plus the 200 series

compatability needs a "custom fit", which in my book, is always

translated into "really, it's unusable". And then the final blow --

when a one of the boldfaced features of a back is that it "comes

in three colors!", you've just gotta laugh....

MT

Marc,

How would you rate your feeling about the "lens factor" of the

645ProBack on the Contax? Does an 80 feel like a 100? Does

the 140 feel like a 200? Or even worse, does that 35 feel like an

80?...

Vlad,

If you are seventeen years old, you just need to shoot A LOT of

images. Do not get overburdened with all this equipment crap. It

is a beartrap. I'd advise one body and one normal lens. (And I''m

not "talking down to you" because you're young; hell I'd say that to

most of the photographers that I know now!)

Keep it simple. It's about the CONTENT, not the gear. It's about

the Ideas. It's about the light.

I wish I still had the emails from my friend Frank Ward from last

week. Both of us just got back from Mexico on shooting trips

(separately). I shot BW 4x5, and he shot Fuji S2 and Noblex. He

said he got all caught up in looking at and reviewing his own

pictures while on the road, in the hotel at night. He seemed to be

saying that it was a negative thing to be able to review; almost

that it was better to just keep seeing what was in front of you, and

then wait to run the film til you got home.

I found that to be true when I had that silly D60 for about a week,

before I stuck it on ebay. I found myself getting WAY too caught

up in what was on that damn screen, instead of relating to the

person in front of me.

I'm saying all this to address your concern about digital vs film.

The flipside of the Frank Ward argument would be that (his

words), that he knew THAT NIGHT that he was shooting lame

pictures, rather than having to wait til he got home to realize it.

Then there is the flipside to the flipside, which might say, did he

shoot different content with the S2 than he would shoot with the

120 Noblex?

Film vs digital; It's a very complex issue.

I'd bet a hundred that the entire line of 200-series bodies are on

their way out. No matter what their official PR line says.

I do believe that the new Sinar back with work with the 200

series, (but of course there are always those oh-so-telling

asterisks that always accompany any links to 200-series and

anything digital).

I'm researching ebay completed auctions now, to find the current

(dropping) prices, to sell this 200 series stuff. Best to sell now.

I'm leaning too toward Contax 645. With the Kodak DCS 645C

back. Who knows why Hasselblad has been left in the dust...

Marc,

Thanks for solid information. Are you saying that somehow, the

Kodak digital back can be mounted in a vertical or horizontal

position? Somehow like a rotating back on a MF film camera?

(So that you don't turn the camera on its side?) Or is it a

software/hardware setting?

And what about the buffer -- do you ever "hit the wall" with the

Contax and the digital back, when you're shooting weddings or

portraits, and you end up shooting too fast for the camera to

process? You can read spec sheets til you're blue in the face,

but I'm curious how to find it to perform in the real world of a

wedding shoot.

The more I read about the Contax 645, the more appealing it

becomes. (Short of the fact that all of my Hassie investment is

now worth next to nothing though).

I'd probably end up with two Contax bodies, an 80, a 140, and a

35, (and the digital back).

MT

If the Contax and the Mamiya are focal-plane bodies, why would

you think that Kodak would not be able to make the ProBack645

compatible with the 200-series Hasselblad bodies, (which are

also focal plane)? I thought Kodak and Hasselblad were in a

lovefest right now, with all kinds of partnerships.

I guess I could deal with shooting the Contax with stop down

metering, but at age 43, my tolerance for this kind of half-ass

shooting is getting pretty low.

No wonder so many people are just bolting to the 35 style

bodies. The relative hassle factor of those seems comparatively

low. Not to mention the cost savings.

Hasselblad is making it tough for me to remain loyal.

There are no digital backs for the 202 or 203 or 205. Not that I

wouldn't jump on one in a heartbeat. Maybe the Kodak could be

rigged up with the Kapture Group plate, but then I think you've got

some funky cable release or something, and it's not

spontaneous and fast, for shooting people.

If you know something I don't know, I'd sure love the secret sign...

Philip,

I'm with you on this, but I have my doubts. Serious doubts.

Lest no one forget, "It's all about da' money". I can't really see any

segment of the market where it's not a no-brainer to switch to

digital, if money and profit is the motive. Photojournalism,

weddings, advertising, corporate, industrial; digital is the way to

go. Maybe the large-format fine-art landscape guys will hold on,

with their TMAX 100 and their silver paper; that's the only

segment where deadlines and profit is not running the show.

For me, as an advertising photographer, it will be the client's

deadline demands that'll make me switch; not the quality of the

file, or the love of the workflow. So many of my jobs lately are just

absolutely ridiculous turnaround times, and it's not so much that

people are waiting so late; I think it's because everyone is so

understaffed and doing three people's jobs, that projects sit on

the corner of people's desk until it comes down to Code Red

deadline time. Then, they dump the job on us, and we've got to

turn retouched hi-rez scans within two days after the shoot day.

That's my world; that's what'll drive me to digital.

Plus, with CMYK process, so much of the data is thrown out the

window in the sep process, you just don't need gigantic files. 30

or 40megs will do fine, if it's a good clean file.

I'm a diehard Hasselblad 202/205 guy, and I'm spoiled to these

sweet scans from the Imacon. But I'm resolved to the fact that I've

probably got only one more year with film, if that. This will be the

year of the Big Switch for me.

I hate all the 35-style bodies, with their tiny viewfinders, and

chincy feel. Give me something the size of a Fuji 680 to hold, any

day; something substantial. I'm looking at the Kodak ProBack,

but I'm not hearing glowing feedback from current users. It's OK

feedback, but they're not raving.

I love the square too. But the only real time I end up with the

square is for my personal work. Every other time, for a job, it

ends up getting cropped somehow, so the 645 format doesn't

bug me that much, unless I had to turn the body sideways to

shoot every frame.

How in the world could Hasselblad ever keep selling enough of

these 200 series bodies to stay in business? No way. Hell, I've

been shooting for almost 25 years, and I'm the first guy that I've

ever met that's every SEEN one, let alone bought one. The world

is turning into a giant 35mm world, and now that the 1Ds is out,

it'll go there even faster. I'm counting the days til all MF is phased

out. Kodak, or MegaVision, or Sinar, or PhaseOne, or somebody,

has GOT to come up with something/anything, to feature that the

35-style bodies WON'T DO, and it's got to related to MONEY, not

just look and feel or feature. If not, count the days. And "days" is

the increment here; not years.

Hasselblad is probably freaking out. The H1 is just the start of

their Only Hope in The World of Surviving. And if Fuji is making

some of their stuff, why does it need to be so expensive any

more? Six grand for a basic starter system, in this economy?

The Fat Lady is about to sing. Unless something really major

happens this year.

Just my opinion.

MT, http://www.marktucker.com

David,

Thank for your this response. YES, I don't know how many

conversations I've had with photographers, over this issue of

diopters. Some say, "I'm not really looking at the ground glass,

I'm looking at the subject of the photograph, that's 20 feet away".

Others say, "You're not looking at the subject, your eyes are

focusing on the Acumatte screen in the body".

I'd say neither one is correct. I, for damn sure, could not put my

eye to a viewfinder prism, and then expect to focus on a screen

that's an inch or two away. No way. And it certainly doesn't feel

right to think that it's the subject distance either.

Who arrived at five feet? And why?

(Honestly, five feet means for sure that I wouldn't use the reading

glasses, which I don't, in real life.)

-MT

I shoot 220 film with Hasselblad 202FA bodies. I have seen a

noticeable amount of film come back from the lab recently that's

just soft; no question about it. Either backfocused or front

focused. I have tons of questions about how to address it. These

are some factors:

* I shoot 220 because I shoot only people, and hate that rhythm

of having to switch backs so often with 120 film.

* I tend to shoot almost ALWAYS wide open fstop, to drop out the

background focus.

* I almost always am on a tripod.

* I am about to hit 44 years old, so I wonder about the eyesight

factor.

I read all this stuff about film flatness, and 220 film, and then I

see that Contax has this vacuum back to pull the film flat, (but

then I read the post just above this one, which confuses me even

further).

Assistants load my backs, and I wonder if there could be

something in the way that they're loading these 220 backs that

could make the film flatness issue more pronounced, or maybe

more prone to happen?

I did an exhaustive film focus test about two weeks ago, where I

shot every combination of body, and finder, and lens, and 220

back; every frame wide open, every frame with hot lights, and

when the film came back, every damn frame was sharp where it

should be sharp. So I didn't really isolate anything out of that test.

Since I shoot wide open, I"m probably the perfect candidate for

this problem to occur. (If there really IS a problem; could it ALL be

hype?)

I also had my eyes tested, but it seemed that having no diopter

on the 45 degree finder on the 202FA body produced the

sharpest image. I need glasses for reading, and I think the

doctor said I was a +2.25 prescription. He said he thought that

converted to a +1 diopter setting for AV equipment.

--

I know I have more questions than answers. Sorry for the

ramble; just trying to provide some background information.

Anyone else see this focus issue?

-MT, http://www.marktucker.com

I use the 110FE all the time. It's the best of the bunch of all the F

lenses, in my opinion. I always shoot it wide open, and

sometimes even with a tube.

If you're doing "street photography", (and that's a wide range of

definition there), I'm not sure I'd choose that camera, but I've

done a good bit of it. See:

http://www.marktucker.com/india/

http://www.marktucker.com/cubamexico/

These trips were done with the 80FE and the 40CFE though.

I also have an older F 100 that I'd sell for cheap. It'sfine, but it's

stop down metering, if you shoot any other fstop besides wide

open.

-MT, Nashville

I am considering the purchase of a Contax 645 body, since it's

usable with the Kodak 645 ProBack C. I have a full stable of

Hasselblad FE lenses now, and I love them. I have heard that

there is an adaptor available, so that the Hassie FE lenses can

be used with the Contax 645.

Is anyone here presently doing this? Is there anything funky

about it; ie, stop down metering, features disabled, etc? Any

real-life information appreciated.

Thanks, Mark Tucker

http://www.marktucker.com

After reading these responses, and reading that RITstuff, for

some reason, the sentence appears in my mind: "You know,

some questions are worth pursuing. And others, maybe, have a

somewhat shorter lifespan".

This could easily fall into that category, where you spend

fourteen grand, and thirty-seven trips to Home Depot, and a year

and a half, and then you open the paper one day and read that

some Taiwanese company is introducing the very same product

that'll retail for $99.95, with a $50 rebate.