ewgrow

<p>Great advice, thanks guys! Sorry for the late response, I thought it was going to notify me when people responded, but I guess it didn't.</p>

<p>Steve: I'm going to check out that website asap. I think I tried googling that place before but to no avail. Thanks for the link.</p>

<p>Jerry: Thanks for the tip. I think it will be almost entirely indoors, but I'll pack the umbrella just in case people decide to take the party outside.</p>

<p>Charles: Lots of good info, many thanks. You're right about the 1600 being a bit much for the cropped-sensor cameras I'll be using. I'd like to keep it to 800 or under, but the reality may be that I have to go higher. And your point about bouncing flash off of things other than the ceiling is well-taken. I guess I was picturing myself in the middle of a big room with nothing around to work with, but there will be people, walls, chandeliers, etc. I'd also like to use as much ambient light as possible, so I'll practice what you were talking about (kicking in just enough flash to make up the difference). </p>

<p>In terms of lenses, I've got the 18-55mm 3.5/5.6 IS that came with the T1i, the 28mm 2.8, the 50mm 1.8, and the 28-135 3.5/5.6 IS USM. So the primes are fairly fast, but the zooms are not, although they have Image Stabilizer. I haven't figured out why they only put the stabilizer in the zooms but not the primes, but I guess that's a question for a different forum. I probably won't buy a lens just for this shoot, but I may look into renting one, so I'll take your advice to heart: a fast zoom with a good range from wide to long. I'm used to shooting in manual so that shouldn't be a problem, but aperture or even shutter priority seems like a good idea for one of the cameras if only to give me less to think about when switching back and forth.</p>

<p>Lots to learn still, thanks again everybody!<br>

Erik</p>

<p>Hi there,</p>

<p>I have a specific question for Seattle wedding photographers: has anyone shot a wedding in the evening at the DAR building in Capitol Hill, and if so, can they tell me anything about the lighting (or other challenges particular to this location)?</p>

<p>I'm doing the classic "first wedding for a friend" and although I'm slowly covering all my bases, any help would be appreciated. I've visited the location, but not at night, and I live in San Francisco (so no chance of checking it out beforehand). I'll be using a Canon D50 and T1i, haven't decided which lenses to use yet, and a 430EX II speedlite with diffuser. The second camera will probably have a fast lens and natural lighting. The wedding is mid-October, so I have a little time yet to sort things out.</p>

<p>Specific concerns: Are the ceilings too high to bounce flash off of? Is the indoor lighting strong enough to use just a 50 1.8 and about 800 ISO? Any other advice related to this location? Many thanks!</p>

Aha, I suspected it was something along those lines. Thanks for the in-depth answer, David. I think I'll just cut the notches out of the sides then, since that seems like a pretty easy solution. Thanks again.

Well, in answer to my own question, I guess I could cut out the sides of the mask where it overlaps the pins. That looks like it would work. Still, if anybody knows the real solution, since there must be one, I'd love to hear it.

Hi everybody,

 

I just got a 16 back for my Hasselblad 500cm and I'm trying to attach

the mask that goes on the viewfinder. It's a clear plastic mask,

with marks for the 6x4.5 format and a square opening for the 4x4

superslide format. I have a standard waist-level viewfinder and the

standard old ground-glass screen. How does this mask go on?

 

If I put the mask on before the viewfinder, it pushes a couple pins

back which then pop out some other pins which block the viewfinder

from sliding on. If I put the viewfinder on first, I can't get the

mask down inside of it to fit onto the screen. I've also tried

putting the mask under the viewfinder and then sliding them on

together, but to no avail. I'm starting to think these parts just

aren't compatible, like maybe the older viewfinders were designed

before these masks were introduced. Can anybody help me out with

this? Many thanks in advance.

 

Oh yeah, it doesn't seem to go under the ground glass either, I tried

that too.

Thanks guys, I'll explore some of these suggestions. We have an excellent video store here in Berkeley (Reel Video), but no luck there. Maybe I'll try those places in the city one of these days.

Back in the forties, Helen Levitt and James Agee made a short

documentary film called "In the Street" that captured life on the

streets of Harlem at the time.

 

Has anybody seen this film and can tell me where I might find it?

I'm in Berkeley, so maybe this is something Jeff or the other Bay

Area people can help with. It looks like I can order it on the web,

but the price is $50, for a film that's only 15 minutes. I'd rather

rent or buy it cheaper if possible.

 

Somebody who wrote the single review of it on www.IMDB.com said it

was on a compilation that he bought on the grey market somewhere.

Anybody know what that compilation was called? Thanks everybody.

Oh yeah, if anybody's seen it, did you like it?

I like Friedlander's work quite well, although I think you're well within your right to question its merit if that's how you feel. Why do I like it? Not entirely sure, although I've noticed that I have slowly grown to appreciate it more and more as I've learned more about photography and its history.

 

I think with Friedlander in particular, as with Frank and many others, you have to view the photos as part of a larger body of work, a larger vision, and not so much as single, self-contained pictures that you can absorb quickly and then move on. Atget's portrait of Paris consisted of thousands of pictures, all informing each other. That said, I think Friedlander has numerous pictures that stand alone as brilliant compositions of revealing moments in our society.

"Could it be that the film can on the bag represents the setting sun?"

 

yeah, and the Kodak symbol is the star-child, and "what's next?" is the monolith floating in

space. I love that movie. Which must mean that Kodak represents the next stage in the

evolution of photography. good graphic design.

Thanks for all the responses. I'm partial to Hamburger Eyes and it's based in SF, sweet. I've seen Shots before and that's good too. I'll have to check out foto8, eyemazing, and some of those others. If anybody else knows good obscure ones we might not have heard of, keep them coming.

Hi Street people,

 

Since I usually like the photos posted in this forum, I thought I'd

ask, what are your favorite photo magazines these days? If you

could give me some suggestions, that would be cool, because I'm

having trouble filling out my X-mas list. Thanks to all.

You're just biased because of your name :) I happened to be in downtown SF today, so I stopped in at the Fraenkel gallery to see what was new, and they had just put up "Sticks and Stones". I was about to leave when I noticed a group of people had gathered around an old man, listening quite intently to what he was saying. It didn't take me long to figure out that it was Lee Friedlander himself. I had just been reading about him in "Bystander: a history of street photography", and now here he was. I didn't know what to say, so I just listened in as the others asked questions.

 

He had some dire things to say about the future of film. I don't know if he knows more than the rest of us, but he was talking about Ilford's bankruptcy and the possible necessity of freezing large quantities of film. He also said that Spotone is now completely gone because the maker just died and nobody has picked up the ball on it, which I wasn't aware of.

 

I like his work very much, but he's never been my favorite. The "Sticks and Stones" prints look very good in person, but I could see how 200 would be a bit much in book form.

 

Anyway, how about my timing, eh? Was anybody else there?

Strange to think he outlived so many of the people he influenced. He's one of those people whose lifetime spanned a century of totally unprecedented change, except that he did it with a camera and an expert eye; it's no wonder we consider him important. That his art was to freeze time in such a rapidly moving age certainly adds to its power and relevancy. For this reason, I imagine his photos will still be considered "timeless" when much other twentieth century art is forgotten. Many thanks Mr. Bresson. (for the elves: a typo above in his name)

One more thing: turn up the sound on that and you can hear the famous radio message

from Armstrong as he takes the first steps.

Hey everyone,

 

Since it's the 35th anniversary of the first moon landing, I thought I'd share this cool link:

 

http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen3/f29.html#Anchor-HHHH-49575

 

Warning: you need Quicktime to view this page. If you don't have it, here's the website's

main page, which has links to download quicktime:

 

http://www.panoramas.dk/

 

I guess they used a "modified" Hasselblad on the moon. Does anyone know what

modifications were necessary to make the thing work? I imagine it has something to do

with the air pressure, or lack thereof, and its effects on film. Did they use normal film, or

was there some special film they were working with? I ask because I'm thinking about the

moon for my next vacation and I want a sharp but fast film to do some street shooting.

 

Thanks for any responses.

-Erik

Thanks for the good advice, everyone. No, I haven't any filters yet, so I'm starting at

square one. Sounds like I should go with a B50 to 52mm adapter. I don't think I'll be

going any wider than the 80, since I tend to like shooting slightly long. Norris, does

Hoya make that rubber adjustable lens hood in the 50-57 size range? Maybe that

would be a good buy. I don't think a Lee system would be right for me, because I

really don't see myself getting much more than a handful of filters-enough to worry

about the cost, but not enough to make that system cost effective for me.

Hi all. I've decided that the cheapest way to use filters and a lens

hood (at the same time) on my Hasselblad 80 C lens is to get a step-

up ring so I can use screw mount filters with a screw mount lens

hood. So, two questions:

 

1. What size should I go to in order to find the cheapest and most

wide selection of filters? 52mm? 57mm? (my lens is B50)

 

2. Having decided #1, what lens hood should I look for and how long

should it be in order to not have vignetting with an 80mm lens (yet

still cover an adequate area)? I'm thinking cheap here--to me a lens

hood is just a piece of plastic that blocks the sun.

 

I've heard a bit about Lee systems and whatnot in some of the other

threads. Would I be better served with something like that? Thanks

in advance to all responses.

Hi everyone. A quick question: I've recently gotten a Hasselblad and

would like to use the same filters for it as I use on my Canon EOS

lens. Sounds like I need an adapter ring. My Hassie lens is B50, my

Canon lens is 72mm. Is there a step-up adapter for this particular

set up? I ask because I've seen many threads referring to other size

adapters, but I haven't seen this particular combination either here

or for sale at any of the major online stores (Adorama, KEH, B+H,

etc.) If these aren't available, are there any ingenious ways I can

still use just one set of filters and save a few bucks?

Can't find an answer to this anywhere in the archives, so I guess

I'll ask it: What are the significant differences between the old

Hasselblad backs, such as the difference between the 12 and the A12?

I ask because I'm going to get a used Hassie soon, and although I've

read about certain differences in specs, they don't mean much to

someone who has yet to use one of these cameras. I'll appreciate any

explanations of why to buy one type of back over another. Thanks in

advance.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. You've given me some good ideas to consider, but I haven't quite made up my mind yet. Maybe I will just share it with some friends. Now if I only had some friends... :)

I recently was given the nice gift of a 10 gallon box of D-76 from a

near-complete stranger. I'd like to mix it in one gallon batches

since I don't have the bottle capacity for all 10 gallons (nor would

I need so much soon enough). Unfortunately, nowhere on the box or

instructions does it give the volumes of the two bags containing part

A and part B that you mix together. If I can figure this out, I can

just take 1/10th of each to make 1 gallon and save the rest for

later. I don't think I have any measuring jars large enough for

this, although maybe my graduate will work. But if someone knows

these amounts out of hand...I'm sure lots of people have done this,

but I have never bought this much developer before. Appreciate any

answers.