simon_gammelin

One more correction:

<p>

In the first paragraph of my original post I meant, of course, that

photo.net is the most visited PHOTO site on the web....

<p>

,.,.,.,.,.,

.,.,.,.,.,

..."but then again every LF thread that lands over there is one less

thread in the information base over here."

<p>

Thoughts?

<p>

.,.,.,.,.,.,

.,.,.,.,.,.

As I recall, several months ago users of this forum were asked if this

site should join photo.net, where there was already a general

photography forum, a medium-format forum, and a nature photography

forum (other fora have since been added). Neither the archives of this

LF site nor its features nor its look would be changed; it would

simply be indexed for, and made accessible to, a much larger audience

(photo.net is, I believe, the most-visited site on the web, so such a

move would certainly increase the visibility of this site). Granted,

"our" site is accessible through Phil Greenspun's bboard, but almost

no visitors to photo.net seem to go there to look.

<p>

The users of this site rejected joining forces with photo.net, for

what struck me as embarrassingly elitist and exclusivist reasons

(those who disagree with this harsh assessment are welcome to berate

me... but calm down and help me, please, by telling me in a

non-elitist way why you still don't think this forum should be part of

photo.net).

<p>

Anyway, I've noticed more and more LF questions popping up on

photo.net; since yesterday noon, 4 of the 11 questions in the

photo.net archived forum have been expressly about LF. Sometimes the

posters over there are steered to this LF page (often by me),

sometimes not. I noticed that even the sponsor of this forum, QTLuong

(to whom endless thanks are due for a most excellent site; my hat's

off to you for a job well done), is among the respondents to LF

questions posted over on photo.net.

<p>

I guess my question is whether it's more fruitful to post LF questions

over at photo.net, where many of the LF regulars in this forum (i.e.,

you-all) participate as part of a MUCH larger overall readership, or

over here, where the audience is much smaller but more focused on LF.

The former option (photo.net) clearly has advantages in terms of

reaching a wider audience (including especially non-U.S. LF users who

don't know about this site) but then again every LF thread that lands

over there is one less thread in the information base over he

Yeah, like he said. I'd guess I make more 1-second-plus exposures with

this camera than not, and I NEVER try to close the shutter by turning

one of the rings. There's too much chance that a bright highlight will

cause a small "hook" or trail of light (in my night work, anyway).

Advancing the winding lever is another way of closing the shutter on

the Fujis. So I just clamp my ski hat (in winter) or a piece of black

velvet (in summer) over the front of the lens, and then I advance the

winding lever. It soon becomes second nature.

Great camera otherwise, ain't it?

.,.,

Doug,

<p>

I've got a lens that makes images that'll knock your socks off. Send

me $40 (non-refundable, sorry) for a sample photo and you'll see what

I mean. Details after I get your check or money order.

<p>

.,.,.,.,

This is a remarkable camera, but as Ellis says, it's not for everyone.

Phil Greenspun reviewed this camera at

http://www.photo.net/photo/fuji-617

If you want to see depth of field tables for a 90mm lens, you can look

at www.schneideroptics.com/large/depth/depthof.htm (they don't have a

105mm lens, but you can use the 110mm chart or just assume that if

90mm doesn't have enough d.o.f. for you 105 certainly won't either).

FWIW, I'd use the "60x90" table rather than the more lax 4x5 or 5x7

tables; as you'll see in the 60x90 table, at f22 with a 90mm lens you

can have everything in focus from about 9 feet to infinity... BUT

remember that the center filter--which most 617 users use--will

subtract two more stops so you'll be shooting at f45 equivalent.

The laws of physics don't bend much, and once you get to the focal

lengths required at the upper end of medium format, the only real way

to get everything in focus from a yard to infinity is to use front

tilt, as on a view camera or on the Fuji 680.

It really depends on what works for you. If you find you're never

changing the fine focus when you double-check with the loupe, you can

just leave on the binocular device. But if you're always altering the

focus when you put on the loupe, then the binocular viewer should just

be used for composition.

<p>

I usually leave on my viewer for most wide-angle shots and others done

in bright light, but when the light falls and/or focus is critical or

tricky I unsnap the viewer and put the loupe to the ground glass.

<p>

.,.,.,.,

Oops, bad math (I was thinking 20x30). Guess you could only get 30 of

them from a 20x24. So much for that.

<p>

.,.,.,.,.,

True, Bill, but you could cut 48 of them from one sheet of 20x24!

<p>

.,.,.,.,.

Well, there's always the option of mounting a Steadicam on a bumper

(e.g., http://www.kiwifilm.com/steadfaq.html)... but if you're

traveling alone in Pakistan that would be extremely expensive and

cumbersome. How do they make those short movies? Suffice to say that a

team of video/film people with tens of thousands of dollars to burn

and a week or two of setup time simply can do some things that

individuals cannot.

<<I would get a ProTL except I like the rotatable backs, bigger

negative size, bellows focusing, and leaf shutters of all the RZ/RB

lenses.>>

...and those are precisely the bulky and heavy features that make the

R's less than ideal for handholding (though of course, as everyone

says, it is possible, at least for short periods of time).

Chris, I'd go 645 Pro-TL; you won't need the rotatable backs, you'll

have fewer d.o.f. issues, the mirror shock is far less (of course, you

can lock up the mirror when handholding the RB/Z but this isn't

ideal), and a 645 kit is about half the size and weight of a

comparable RB/RZ setup. 6x7 SLRs are wonderful for many things, but

handholding them in existing light isn't their forte.

www.bhphotovideo.com > Photo > Medium format > Lenses > Pentax > 6x4.5

> "Submit" > Click on "More info" to see picture, specs, and

accessories for each lens.

That's only for current production lenses, of course....

Don't know if it's available on video. Some possible leads:

<p>

Janet Russek of Scheinbaum & Russek (in Santa Fe) founded the New

Mexico Council of Photography, which annually awards the Willard Van

Dyke Memorial Grant in Photography (and S&R also sell Van Dyke

photographs; they're a remarkable resource). She's at

<p>

328 S Guadalupe Street, Suite M,

Santa Fe, NM 87501, Phone: 505.988.5116

<p>

Don't have a website or e-mail for them.

<p>

I also found two showings of the movie in recent months: the Boston

Museum of Fine Arts, (???) 267-9300, showed it last September 8, and

the Arts Assn of Nanctucket, (508) 325-5251, showed it last November.

They both probably showed a film version but you could ask where they

ordered it from and call their source. The latter listed it as 27

minutes long, fwiw....

<p>

Hope this helps.

<p>

.,.

No direct response to your question, but anyone in the States owes it

to themselves to consider buying Mamiya new from overseas (without the

Mamiya America markup) as opposed to buying used; often the prices are

roughly equal and sometimes the new eqpt from overseas is actually

cheaper than the used eqpt stateside. A popular place to check prices

is www.robertwhite.co.uk (prices are in British pounds, but there's a

currency converter) and there are a number of sources in HongKong etc.

listed in Monaghan's website, for which I don't have a URL.

.,.

Bubble levels were also added on the III.

.,.,.,

I obviously was composing my above response as you were posting your

70%/30% response. I'm surprised to learn that you shoot that much MF

(and obviously the Fuji 6x9 wouldn't be a huge difference for you,

although my remarks re: 5x7 and 4x5 still are valid).

<p>

.,..,.,.,.,.,.

I don't know of any 5x7 metal fields or monorails in the $500 range

(which is presumably what you'd have to pay if you're going to stay

within the $700-900 figure).

<p>

Like Chuck Pere (above), I too wondered where you're coming from. If

it's from 35mm, I'd say (prepare for heresy, folks) get a used Fuji

6x9 and a used Beseler 23C enlarger. You'll save a bundle on film

costs compared to 5x7 (as with pets, in LF initial purchase price can

pale in comparison to ongoing costs) and if you only enlarge to 5x7

most people won't be able to tell the difference between your

enlargements and a 5x7 contact print (yes they will; the enlargements

will be the ones that don't need spotting!). Best of all, you won't

be forever limited to having every photo you ever make be exactly

4.7x6.7 (or whatever the dimensions of 5x7 are). Yes, 5x7 contact

prints can be beautiful, but no, I wouldn't want to be limited to

that, and if you're going to scan on anything but a drum scanner, 5x7

doesn't give you much of an edge over the next smaller formats.

<p>

Come to think of it, if you're already a LF shooter and are tripod

weary, as Chuck notes--it periodically happens to us all!--the Fuji

6x9, handheld, wouldn't be a bad solution for that either. But I

doubt you'd be looking at 5x7 if you're already shooting 4x5 or 8x10,

at least not in the radical way you hope it might give you "a change

in vision."

<p>

Of course, if you're a 35mm or MF user and want to move up to large

format, there are ways of getting into 4x5 for $700-900--especially

if you're happy with scanning options when it comes to getting larger-

than-contact-sized prints. But 5x7 would be tough in that price range

unless you're open to really beat-up "wobbly wood fields."

<p>

Good luck. More info on your current/past preferences should lead to

more useful responses than I've been able to provide!

<p>

.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,

I won't comment on the NANPA part of your question, because I'm not a

member of that organization.

I do subscribe to OP. I too was struck by the way OP kept Fatali's

identity from readers, but then consider the source. Have you ever

seen a negative product review in OP? Have they ever published a

letter to the editor that was critical of something they'd said or

published? (Both of these are always a good test when judging

magazines, and OP fails badly.) For that matter, are you able to tell

which pages are ads and which are articles? OP is so eager not to step

on anyone's toes that we probably should not look for it to be a

"conscience" for any cause except moving product.

Re: Jack Dykinga, I believe OP softened his direct reference to Fatali

by putting it in [brackets]. From all appearances Dykinga is an

environmentalist (as opposed to a mere nature photographer), but that

doesn't mean he's going to publicly diss another professional

photographer whose ethics he disagrees with. Creating bad blood often

doesn't serve any larger purpose, and Dykinga may have spoken out

about as strongly as he felt comfortable doing (of course, we'll never

know how much was edited out of his comments). Anybody who knows the

circumstances of the Delicate Arch incident and knows of Dykinga's

integrity can pretty well figure out how he feels about the Fatali

fiasco.

Consider: Everybody knows that Galen Rowell would never do the kinds

of digital manipulations that Art Wolfe does, for example, but all

Rowell will ever acknowledge publicly is that of course he COULD

(technically and financially) do any shenanigans he wanted to, but for

reasons of principle he chooses not to.

In that vein, I think it's best to judge Dykinga, Fatali, Rowell, and

Wolfe not by what they say but by what they do.

(I know I barely touched on your larger question, but I'm sure others

can speak to that better than I can.)

No, no, Rob, you're looking at it all wrong. Why not rephrase the question:

Where do rectangular-format photographers get their test strips?

.

Mark's right. If people complain that the lens blocks part of the

Fuji's viewfinder with the 65mm lens, imagine what it would do with a

45mm! It would probably block more than a quarter of the view, unless

it's an external (shoe-mounted) viewfinder--in which case there are

plenty of 6x9 and 6x7 options already, including the Plaubel, the

Horsemans, the Cambo Wide, the Mamiya 7, etc....

.,.,.

You had me (in your first post), then you lost me (in your second):

<p>

"I do not feel like I have to justify, in moral terms, the intent of

my artistic endeavors. The artist is not beholden to an obligation of

soothing society's feelings. . . nor should he have to justify his

work on the grounds that it's "uplifting" or any other such hackneyed

sentiment. On the other hand, you are entirely right that people

respond kindly to others who present themselves as compassionate and

interested, rather than opportunistic."

<p>

To the degree you present this as an exploration into what it means

to be human, to grieve, and to go through rituals, I think you can

find a sympathetic mortician. To the extent you present yourself as

self-important "conceptual artist" immune to "hackneyed sentiments"

who is "beholden to no one" who need not "justify his work," I think

you'll get a lot of doors slammed in your face.

<p>

In other words, if you genuinely care about people, including

morticians, deceased persons, and survivors, that concern will show

through and those who can might be willing to help you. But if you

regard these people whose help you need not as fellow humans but as

merely aesthetic "means" to reach what you present as fairly selfish

artistic "ends," you're going to have a much tougher go of it. There

are countless very compelling photographic treatments of death,

dying, and human suffering--indeed, it's one of the great themes of

photography. I can't think of any worthy examples, however, that were

created by someone who feigned indifference to the human feelings of

both his audience and his subjects. A tip: arrogance is not usually

the best way to get a foot in the door.

<p>

Good luck.

<p>

.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,

Damn! That's it!

I've been poring over Annie Liebowitz's work, trying to figure out why

the subjects of her portraits are always so fuzzy as to be

unrecognizable. Too much vaseline on the lens? Stacking of those

cheapo Cokin soft filters? Or are Annie's eyes going so much that she

just can't focus? But now we know: it's because she uses Mamiya! Such

a simple answer, all along, and until this Bronica salesman came along

to enlighten Ron, nobody could figure it out!

Sheldon's right, of course; no major camera company (B, F, H, M, P, or

R) could sell tens of thousands of MF lenses to countless working

professionals if the company's lenses were "soft." They all make a lot

of very sharp lenses, and though some lenses in each company's lineup

may be marginally less sharp than others made by that company, to

characterize one brand as universally sharper than another is

nonsense. By the way, the tests at photodo.com aren't perfect, but

they do help illustrate this.

I don't think this combination is particularly advisable. Even if the

67>645 adaptor would work, a 75mm lens on a 645, as you know, is

roughly "normal"--equal to almost a 50mm lens on 35mm. Many people

think the 75mm 6x7 shift lenses (Mamiya and Pentax), are already too

long at 38mm equivalence for most situations in which one would want a

shift lens (e.g., architectural photography). I don't know of any

simple solution to your situation; one occasionally hears of

aftermarket/third-party adaptors and lenses (wasn't there something

introduced at Photokina this year?) but they seem expensive and/or

cumbersome. Mamiya offers a 50mm shift lens for their 645, but that

would be difficult or impossible to adapt for your camera. If you need

a shift lens often, it would probably be easier to get a cheap Mamiya

body and that particular lens. fwiw...

Of course, it could be Carleton Watkins, too . . . but I've spent far

too much time on this already.

<p>

(Hmmm. If W.H. Fox Talbot's grand-daughter married Carleton Watkins'

son, they COULD have named the boy "Talbot Watkins," which sounds a

little like "Albot Watson." Or maybe not.)

<p>

.,.,.,

The plot thickens....

<p>

Just a hunch, but the "Watson" got me thinking about British

photographers (it's elementary!). "Albot" sounds like saying "Albert"

with a full nose, but could Alex be seeking the famous photographic

pioneer T. Albot "Henry Fox" Watson?

<p>

Although there weren't a lot of camera formats like APS and 35mm to

choose from in January, 1839 (when William Henry Fox Talbot presented

to the Royal Society in London a paper on "the art of photogenic

drawing, or the process whereby natural objects can trace themselves,

without the help of the artist's pencil"), I suppose that "T. Albot"

could be considered a "well-known large-format photographer."

<p>

Alex, if he's the one you're looking for, these books might be useful:

<p>

HJP Arnold's "William Henry Fox Talbot: Pioneer of Photography"

<p>

Gail Buckland's "Fox Talbot and the Invention of Photography"

<p>

HP Kraus, Jr.'s, "W.H. Fox Talbot: The Pencil of Nature"

<p>

Mike Weaver's "Henry Fox Talbot: Selected Texts and Bibliography"

<p>

and, depending on how serious you are about this, Hubertus von

Amelunxen's "Die aufgehobene Zeit: die Erfindung der Photographie

durch William Henry Fox Talbot" (have a German-English dictionary

handy).

<p>

Of course, every comprehensive photographic history book (including

Rosenblum's and Frizot's) has numerous references to Talbot (hint:

start at the beginning).

<p>

Again, good luck.

<p>

.,.,.,.