simon_gammelin

I read once (and this was a number of years ago, so she may be more

open now) that Tenneson was VERY "secretive" about her methods, not

wanting others to steal her "look." Fwiw, my understanding is that for

her look the quantity of lighting is responsible for the quality of

the look more than the lens is. Apparently she uses (used?) bazillions

of softlights, from all directions, to get that soft look. That and

"high key" printing (or, as David Vestal would call it,

"overexposure").

 

Maybe there's been more on her technique since then, but then I think

her look has changed a bit over the years also.

 

.

The only view camera photographers who use blankets rather than the

BTZS focus cloths are those who have never spent the $60 and tried the

BTZS.

 

<p>

 

I gave up a long time ago on those who say "Really--trying to hold

down an enormous blanket in the wind, especially sealing the bottom

against bright light reflecting off the ground, while trying to focus

AND hold a loupe to the ground glass... really, it's not so bad." The

worst was when the 2-page(!) article appeared in View Camera magazine

a couple of issues ago by a guy who suggested that you're an idiot if

you don't drape your WHOLE CAMERA under a horse blanket (again, I

doubt he ever tried the BTZS).

 

<p>

 

Bottom line: those who have tried the BTZS almost never go back to the

blanket.

 

<p>

 

Enough ranting. I'd go with D-I's recommendation; I've found them very

accommodating about exchanging and even about offering to customize

the "waist size" if it doesn't fit. A simple safety pin or two will

quickly take up any slack if the 5x7 cloth isn't quite snug enough but

you judge that the 4x5 would be too small.

It depends on what you're shooting, but "uncorrected" verticals in

closeup work can look worse than they do for buildings (partly

because we're more used to seeing uncorrected building photos than we

are uncorrected closeup shots, and partly because uncorrected

building shots are assuringly bottom-heavy while uncorrected product

shots tend to be disconcertingly top-heavy). Catalogs that show

photos of books or boxes or bottles that are trapezoidal in

appearance can look pretty amateurish, and it isn't just for subjects

with straight lines that this kind of perspective correction can be

useful. But if you're just shooting flowers or coins or such you can

often get by without movements.

 

<p>

 

.,.,.,

.,.,,.

.,.,.,

Don't know about Arca Swiss, but with any recent Sinar, any Sinar

bellows (bag or regular) easily clips onto the back standard for

viewing purposes. It works fine, although obviously there's no

magnification (as there is with most clip-on monocular and binocular

viewers) and it's harder to put a loupe to the groundglass (as can be

done with a darkcloth).

 

<p>

 

What brand of camera are you using?

 

<p>

 

.,.,.,

.,.,.,

.

http://www.universityphoto.net/

 

http://www.reflectiveimages.com/new_page_2.htm

 

.

I don't think ANY lenses except Mamiya's two short-barrel lenses will focus at infinity when using the swing-tilt adaptor. It apparently works well for table-top and similar close-up applications, though.

Sorin,

 

<p>

 

Do you want a "rotating" back or simply one that can be removed and

changed from/to landscape/portrait mode? Few cameras being discussed

here have the former; most have the latter.

 

<p>

 

.,.,

.,

Although each of the four major brands (Fuji, Nikkor, Rodenstock, and

Schneider) has its partisans, most photographers agree that it's

difficult to generalize about entire brands. The differences are

certainly there, but they're more often between different lenses

within one company's lineup ("their 150 is better than their 120"), or

between companies for different focal lengths (one company may have

the "best" 90mm lens and another company the "best" 150mm), or between

individual samples (your 180 Rodenstock may be sharper than my 180

Rodenstock).

 

<p>

 

I'd venture to guess that--unless they are affiliated with a lens

company--very few LF photographers who own more than three lenses have

stuck with only one brand, whether it be R or S or F or N. One of the

beauties of LF photography compared to smaller formats is that you can

mix and match among brands; if for one focal length you like the

Nikkor best and for another focal length you like Schneider, you don't

have to choose. As soon as you can afford them, you can buy them both.

 

<p>

 

So which lens to buy? Depends on your needs and your budget. If you

backpack and shoot landscapes you may like small, compact, lightweight

lenses, which tend to be slower but cheaper, while if you shoot

architecture you may want faster lenses that offer large image circles

but are often heavier, larger, and cost more. Either way, you won't go

wrong buying from any of the "Big Four" lens compan

If you're contact printing 8x10, grain is not a matter. If you enlarge

any format large enough, it is of course a matter. But because you

have to enlarge 8x10 film quite a ways before grain is a matter, many

choose to shoot 400 instead of 100 film so they can optimize

aperture/dof while gaining a couple of shutter speeds--often a

desirable thing.

 

<p>

 

.,.,.,

.

Those who liked the show may be interested in this obituary for the

head of the Flat Earth Society, who believed the moon landing was

indeed faked (in Arizona):

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/25/national/25JOHN.html?searchpv=site02

 

.,

Greg, be sure to certify when you order that the tool does indeed come

with the screen. I bought a Beattie screen--not a Mamiya screen--for

my 645 Pro TL (I wanted grid plus split image, which Mamiya didn't

offer) and B&H did not enclose the tool, instead selling it separately

(for $14?--whatever, it's worth it)... presumably because Beattie

doesn't include the tool with the screens it sells to B&H (but I can

also see unscrupulous vendors removing the tool from the Mamiya-brand

screen kits). I was able to use the tool from my Canon EOS screens to

change the screen in my Pro-TL, but of course if something had gone

wrong I would have had no recourse with the manufacturers. So make

sure you get the tool, even if you have to buy it separately (i.e., if

you buy a non-Mamiya-brand screen).

...but you can guarantee yourself prints that are perfectly free of

specks, hairs, lint, dust, etc. if you use Readyloads or Quickloads...

 

<p>

 

.,.,.,

.,.,.

Brian, I suppose this doesn't answer your question, but I've carried a

Pentax spotmeter with me every day for the past 15 years or so and

I've never, ever had a lens cap on it--even tho it's been thru hell

(figuratively) and high water (literally). I just like to whip it out,

take a reading, and stuff it away again, without fussing over a lens

cap. I suppose there are a few marks on the front element, but nothing

that affects viewing or metering quality. fwiw

 

.,.,.,

Yes, Sal, you're right about Ansel endorsing the need for true shades.

I probably had St. Edward in mind more than St. Ansel (the latter of

whom obviously could make do with a hat on occasion but knew better).

 

<p>

 

.,.,.,

.,.,

Several of the above respondents have implied that you only need to

worry about blocking light from a point source (like the sun). But

every test I've ever seen shows that image quality is degraded due to

light spill from ALL directions, not just from the direct sun, and

those who say "Pshaw! Don't waste money on a lens hood when your hat

will do just fine" (aka "the Ansel alibi") usually don't realize how

much contrast they're losing by not putting a 360-degree hood around

the lens.

 

<p>

 

Fwiw, I use the Lee compendium shade/filter system, with 4x4 and 4x6

filters and with different-sized front-lens-thread adaptors for

various lenses. These have been amply discussed in Older Messages in

this forum.

 

<p>

 

.,.

From Christopherf Burkett's "Intimations of Paradise":

 

<p>

 

"I print all of my own work, spending ten or more months every year in

the darkroom. . . . There are many subtle and important decisions

which have to be made each time an image is printed, which is why I

will be the only one ever to make my exhibition prints for sale."

 

<p>

 

For those wondering about the technical side of Burkett's process:

 

<p>

 

"(With my larger darkroom) I am now able to print 30"x40" images,

which is the size that most of the work looks best. I now have over

1,000 square feet of darkroom space, in three rooms, with another

2,000 square feet of work, office and storage space. In my darkroom I

use a DeVere 10x10 horizontal enlarger with a 5,000-watt closed-loop

color head, and a 42" Kreonite Cibachrome processor. Plans are in the

works for future expansion of the workspaces."

 

<p>

 

.,.,.,.,

.,.,.,.,

I'd say it depends on the size of the print, the nature of the

friendship, and the degree to which you can do prep work yourself.

 

<p>

 

If it were me (I have no framing/mat-cutting capabilities) I'd go to a

you-frame-it kind of store and have a mat cut, along with a same-sized

mounting board (i.e., in 16x20 if it's an 11x14 print). If it's a

fiber-base print, you may have to dry mount it to get it to look

decent; otherwise I'd corner tape it in position and let the recipient

decide how/if to mount it more permanently. I'd present this

lightly-mounted, matted photo as is.

 

<p>

 

Assuming you have these two pieces (mount and mat) in a standard size

like 16x20 (11x14, 20x24, 20x30), the gift recipient could buy the

metal Nielsen-type frames for about $25 at any art store (plus maybe

$6 for the glass)--or if they're REALLY cheap they could buy a

pre-framed 16x20 poster at Target and substitute your photo for the

poster.

 

<p>

 

In other words, you want to invest enough so you don't look cheap and

the photo doesn't look too bad, but not so much that the gift takes on

more meaning than you wanted it to--or so that the recipient is

uncomfortable rematting and framing it.

 

<p>

 

.,.,.

Or if that URL doesn't work pick the Plaubel from this page of Classic

medium-format cameras:

 

http://www.mediakyoto.com/camerashopper/cla_came_e/mid_e.html

 

.

Barry, there's a bit more on the Plaubel here:

 

http://www.mediakyoto.com/camerashopper/cla_came_e/plaubel69w_proshift

_e/index_e.html

Hope you've got deep pockets, Rob. The last I heard full-sized Gurskys

were starting at $50,000 per (the New Yorker said he only makes six

copies of each picture, and he makes about 10 pictures per year).

That's just for the initial sale; at auction his images have been

approaching the quarter-million-dollar mark. Don't know if he offers

smaller, poster-like larger runs, though.

 

<p>

 

.,.,.,.,

.,.

Actually, Wilshire was a legendary "drop tester" for the Graphic View

company. Quite the showman, he would drop Graphic View cameras from

the roof of the 12-story company headquarters, after which he would

scrape the camera off the pavement and prove to the assembled throng

that the camera "Still Makes Pictures!" Supposedly those that could

survive five drops and still function became his "personal cameras."

 

<p>

 

.,.,.,.,.,

.,.,.

Oren, is the Phillips a horizontal-only camera (you have to use tripod

head to tilt the camera 90 degrees to shoot verticals) or does it have

a revolving back, as I assume the Canham has?

 

<p>

 

Thanks.

 

<p>

 

.,.,.,.,

.,.,.,

I own six Gitzos but more often than not for the kind of work you

describe I take the Bogen Carbon Fiber One 440, one of the best (and

most underrated) tripods on the market. (Its only shortcoming is the

max. height, but I often use the center post and just rest my hand on

the camera to steady it.) For the head, I use the second lightest

Kaiser; the Giottos are comparable, I understand.

 

.

Garry and Erik, do either of you have a sense for the longest lens

that can be used with the bag bellows on the Ebony? That might help

Mike justify the bb purchase. I initially shied away from purchasing

the bag bellows for my (non-Ebony) 4x5 because I didn't want to always

have to carry two sets of bellows, but (as with Erik) after I bought

it I couldn't believe I'd tried to go without it (them?). Although the

camera makers usually downplay the "long" end of bag bellows capacity,

with mine I can focus a 210mm at a foot and a half or so even with

some movements, and it's a breeze for 120-150mm.

 

<p>

 

.,.,.,.,.,

.,

Doug, I have no quarrel with anything you say. But I think that, using

the Medium-Format Digest as a model, it IS possible to be directly

linked to photo.net while still retaining all of the good things that

you value about this LF forum. Consider: the MFD forum has its

regulars, its esoteric questions, its professional tone, and very few

Canon v. Nikon v. Minolta type questions (sure, it has some Hassy v.

Rollei stuff, but then again WE get Schneider v. Rodenstock v. Nikon

questions too!).

 

<p>

 

Would this forum become diluted if it moved under the photo.net

umbrella? I doubt it. Scanning down the list of current questions in

this forum (Deardorffs and BTZS tubes and macro work in 8x10), there

are very few about which I'd worry a tyro from photo.net would jump

in and offer useless advice. On the other hand, having a larger

presence on photo.net would build exposure for LF and probably pick up

and create some new LF users. I frankly do wonder, though, if some

visitors to this LF forum actually think that that kind of growth (in

LF proponents) would be a BAD thing or would at least pose some kind

of "threat."

 

<p>

 

.,.,.