david_henderson

The OP joined Photo.net on the day his post was made , and has not been on the site at all since early December. You are talking to yourselves I'm afraid. Which is fine if that's what you're content to do.

Hi Made a mess of my last effort Some new galleries/photographs on my website www.photography001.com Minimal. Simply designed photographs from Senja, Norway Storm Watching. Dramatic weather systems on the Lofoten Islands Two beaches of Asturias, Spain. Colourful "back of the beach" rocks on two very different beaches By the sea, digital Total change of images from new work. Additionally, all images now display larger on -screen. If you'd like to make feedback , good or bad/mistakes, please use either this site or the email link on my website. Thanks David Henderson

Hi Some new galleries/photographs on my website www.photography001.com Minimal. Simply designed photographs from Senja, Norway Storm Watching. Dramatic weather systems on the Lofoten Islands Two beaches of Asturias, Spain. Colourful "back of the beach" rocks on two very different beaches By the sea, digital Total change of images from new work. Additionally, all images now display larger on -screen. If you'd like to make feedback , good or bad/mistakes, please use either this site or the email link on my website. Thanks

Interesting that you consider the risk of X-Ray damage to be greater than the combined risks/inconveniences of finding film in a place you don't know; finding processing in a place you don't know; maybe having to use a sub-optimal film; risks of processing error by a lab you don't know; risk of loss in transit to you by a lab/postal service; having to wait days for processing because many labs won't find it sensible to run processing every day. I think many would disagree with you - and I certainly would. I would not hold my breath waiting for the number of film sellers and labs on a world scale to increase dramatically unless there is a very large increase in film usage globally. I doubt whether there are enough photographers thinking/behaving as you describe to drive film & lab availability.

I'm not sure that the OP's question is yet answered. I think he wants to know how to recognise what "stable" is and when he's got it- not just start off on the never ending treadmill of different materials, different heads for incremental improvements that still might not supply "stability". I've photographed a long time and had a few tripods and heads, mostly in the middling price bands. I have never owned a tripod that offered me reliable stillness when on grass longer than a cut lawn ( probably my most common footing) or wet sand, or where the sea comes in and hits the tripod legs part way through a long exposure. I've never had a tripod/head setup that doesn't vibrate in even a stiff breeze and especially with a telephoto or zoom attached. Some of these circumstances would defy pretty much any tripod or head. Others are unaffordable or not portable, at least by me. So I guess I'm questioning whether the range of conditions photographers shoot in, the variability of the footings, the nature of the subject and lenses needed to photograph them , make "stability" an elusive concept, an expensive animal to hunt and no guarantee of success. We all exceed the capabilities of our tripods/heads sometimes and miss shots because of it. But sometimes , standing on a seashore in the Outer Hebrides in a gale and trying to make a 5 second exposure - it may well defeat any equipment that one could practically elect to use. To me the best I hope for is to understand the conditions in which my tripod/ head is going to work and when its capabilities are being stretched and indeed when I might be better off knowing I probably won't get that shot and when I might be better off hand-holding. To recognise the times when I have to compromise how I set up a shot so I'm doing something that my kit might just allow me to get away with. I know I can't avoid some degree of camera movement, but I can in large measure avoid disappointment. And with digital, bracketing for wind is cheaper than buying a tripod that might not vibrate today ( but will surely vibrate on other days) and is clearly a lot easier to carry.

" No modern flatbeds is ok for scanning film" Not necessarily true. Depends on what size film and your purpose. If what you want is scans to facilitate viewing on a screen - whether on a website or to contribute to Photo.net for example, a consumer flatbed is capable of producing decent results . Prints from 35mm is a different story and you're not going to get a print -worthy file much bigger than a proof print. From MF though the horizon goes up- I'm quite happy with a flatbed scan to provide images for my Blurb books, up to 12" sq. And with prints up to that size too. Not saying a budget flatbed is the very best option, but that given the ability to use the scanner well, and some skills in post to reflect the fact that few scans are usable direct from a scanner, then you can get decent results. And back when I used to get BW prints made by a lab, most often the brief they got was a scanned MF neg adjusted by me to show what I'd want my prints to look like. So not perfect, some limitations, very disappointing when you use them for something they aren't good at. But not useless.

Beattie is part of a US business called Reflexite based in Rochester NY. There's an address on the Beattie Intenscreen website- press the "Contact us " link on the homepage. There's a full dealer list also available with phone numbers so depending on where you are you might be able to call somewhere local to find out what's available these days. Doubt whether they'd sell used though.

Alan I bought the Mamiya 7ii and 50/80/150 lenses as a second camera. I needed to carry a back-up camera on trips and my thinking was that I may as well buy something that would help me get pictures that I would struggle to get with my 6x6 slr. That included circumstances where I had to hand-hold; or when I wanted a rectangular image without cropping from 6x6. I was happy with the camera- very sharp lenses, though I'm sure they'd have been sharper still if I'd used the tripod more. I have some photographs that pleased me greatly with this camera, mostly with Velvia/Provia , sometimes with Tri-X.. Fair to point out some downsides though. First hand-holding is possible and I'd say that I expected a usably sharp image down to 1/30, and at 1/15 it was about 50:50. So useful but not say as easy or as reliably sharp at lower speeds as a good dslr with IS these days. I don't know what the metering on your Mamiya slr is like, but personally I never used a MF camera that I trusted as much as a handheld spotmeter, and the Mamiya 7 was no exception - you have to bear in mind that the field metered is the same irrespective of the focal length of the lens you're using. No matter if you're using an external meter of course. Not everyone finds rf focus as easy as slr focussing too, and of course if you're usual practice is to judge focus around the frame ttl then you don't do that with the rangefinder, and close focussing isn't possible . Finally you can't see the effect of filters ttl and using grads in particular is really difficult. Because I tended to use contrasty colour slide films I did sometimes resort to screw-in grads with the Mamiya. So an enigma- in some ways very flexible ( weight & hand-holding). In other ways quite restricting and imprecise. Bear in mind also that I have to speak as a landscape-orientated photographer . Other people with different objectives won't necessarily feel as I do. I recall in particular that Jeff spirer used this camera very effectively for outdoor portraits.

I know this is after the event, but here's a point of view. No way would I want a 25yo Mamiya 6 as my main or only camera. Especially if, as is my case, where the bulk of my photography is carried out on trips away from home in places where a repair would be very improbable. So would I risk a trip costing thousands of dollars on a Mamiya 6- not likely. On the other hand, if most of my photography was based at home, so a problem would at most cost me a few shots, and |I had other cameras old or new that I could use instead, then why not. I had the Mamiya 7ii for years albeit I used it as a second camera because my 6x6 slr was more flexible. That Mamiay rf got me many shots I could not have got with my slr (though the reverse is true also). "Square" is a different and contentious issue. I shot square for 10 years and cropped very little. After 10 years with a dslr and now find I'm increasingly cropping to square on the pictures /collections I like best. I guess its still with me.

This new member joined Photo.net to make this post and has not been on the site since two hours after the OP was written. So none of the responses here have been seen by the poster at all. You might want to consider that in the event that you're thinking about trying to help him/her.

There are three bad outcomes that will tend to occur together You lose or affect the personal relationship. I don't know how important this is to you. It probably would be significant to me, though you may be prepared to sacrifice it in exchange for a few hundred dollars on the altar of "it's my photograph". Only you can answer this but from what you've said you're some way down this path already. You don't sell them the rights to the picture and they find another image they can use to promote their business. They can quite probably do this without losing sales and certainly for a lot less than $5 000 - just take a look at the prices charged for royalty free images by even the bigger players these days. You can't sell the image elsewhere. This is William's point, and as a photographer with many thousands of images represented by photo libraries I would not expect any sensible agency to agree to handle this image without a property release signed by the owners of the car and possibly (can't be sure) by the owners of the vehicle's brand. I'd guess you have no chance of persuading your "client" to sign a property release that opens up the possibility of selling it elsewhere unless you have supplied it to them, are on good terms with them, and have offered them some form of discount to reflect that you have supplied the image on a non-exclusive basis. I think the way you've started off this negotiation runs substantial risk of all three of these outcomes occurring. The way you've worked out the price you want is arbitrary & has little basis in the general way these pricing decisions are made. I don't think there's any logic to your number. Have you looked at the websites of the organisations that sell photographic rights in volume to see how they do it for Royalty Free and Rights Managed, exclusive or non exclusive - bearing in mind that even those prices do not all flow back to the photographer. You seem to think that because you pressed the shutter you are in the driver's seat . When the client says "we made the art together", that might be wrong legally but commercially it's dead right. Without you both co-operating your picture is worth zilch, and the same for your friendship. I think the value of your photograph is what your "client" is happy to give, and that the alternative to that is zero. In your position I might go back to the client, apologise for getting off on the wrong foot and ask if you can start again, together. Whilst I would do the research I suggest above, I would not use that as a stick to browbeat your client with. I would want to find out what the clients expectation is and how far I could nicely push that along whilst having a happy client and a sale. If you want a property release signed ( to facilitate selling elsewhere) you may well find that he/she would want a price concession to sign it or even the use of the image for free in return for signing it. Intuitively this is a route I'd avoid, and I 'd settle for the most I could get on a friendly basis from someone already emotionally invested in the image rather than the freedom to sell in a difficult, underpriced market and the risk of nothing.

link Thanks for the reply. I wondered whether you were printing quite large . But the point you make on focus being more difficult with MF than 35mm also resonated and after 10 years away from MF it's something I hadn't thought of. Most of my hand-held transparencies from a Mamiya 7 printed decently as I said, but those I rejected for printing were more likely to have focus errors than camera shake at 1/250 and 1/500. Finally although I won't be in the USA for your exhibition ( I'll be photographing on the coast of N Spain) I did look at your site and I liked what I saw.

link. What process do you have to go through to discern a major reduction in sharpness from handheld 6x9 vs tripod mounted? My guess would be that it would be hard to see on a screen unless you enlarge majorly, and that a print would have to be large enough so most people might not want /need to go that big very often. I'm sure that if you go right to the margin there is a difference, but how many people need that and how often? For most people its not an intellectual game to determine better or worse, its whether you can get the image you actually need at the size you need it. I speak as someone who has had made a number of large prints from a hand-held Mamiya 7 that have elicited no complaints. And, for any given output size, would 35mm, given greater enlargement, be any better anyway? I suspect it would actually be worse.

I delete probably 20% in-camera, and a further 40% on loading into Lightroom. I'm indecisive. This is nowhere near enough. If I could be bothered to revisit files after even a few weeks, I could probably lose another 20% at least & the only reason I don't is that I don't want to waste time going through pictures I don't much like. I have never, in 11 years of digital photography, regretted deleting any image or found a use for anything if only I hadn't deleted it. In a previous life using MF film I threw away at least 25% of the frames I took, and put another 60% minimum , still in strips, in albums and put them in my attic, literally never to be seen again. If we move they'll be in the skip. I find both the process and the result of getting rid of images cathartic. I like my collections a whole lot better when they are of manageable size and the good stuff isn't smothered by piles of rubbish. I like what I've done on a trip much, much better after I've got rid of the worst. And btw I don't junk stuff because I'm hugely prolific- 100-150 shutter presses a day is a really big day for me on a trip geared around getting pictures; but I still get enough duplication or( in retrospect) bad pictures to throw a large proportion away. I really struggle to understand the thought processes of people who think that everything they do is of value, might be of value, or relish searching endlessly through a back catalogue to find an photograph they didn't much like first time . Its hard enough to choose between the 10-20% that I quite like without expanding that universe & reminding myself that most photographs- mine and other people's- are junk.

After my first post here for a long time I'm piqued to make another. I must confess to hating scanning. Its dull, repetitive, and utterly boring. The only debate I have with the gentleman above who referred to it as a task for the eighth day of the week is that for me it might be the ninth. I've never been attracted to the palaver of buying and setting up the ability to use a DSLR as a scanner . This isn't because it won't work- its because I have never, ever, considered seriously the possibility of scanning my entire slide collection. My decision has always been to scan only those slides or negs for which I absolutely need the scan- like stock agency acceptances or because I want to make a print for me or others. If I don't have a clear and present use for a scan, I don't make it, or have it made. That means that scanning for me is something I do one, two, a few at a time, especially nowadays. And I really can't imagine buying the bits or setting up the rig you need to "scan" with a dslr to do one or two. Now I know ( since I've been around here a good few years) there are folk that set themselves the task of scanning entire collections of their photos or family photos, and spend weeks, months or years of what could have been spare time getting that done. Sorry, for me, not a chance. Edward Ingold referred to Dslr scanning as being "for enthusiasts". I could not bring any enthusiasm whatsoever to the task of scanning my 50 000 approx MF slides, or even to the mammoth task of sorting the pile down to the 5 000 that might actually be worth a light and scanning So for me the demise of quality scanners and scanning businesses is more of a big deal , even if its not something that keeps me awake or affects my every day.

I think its a pity. The Imacon Flextight was/is about the most economical scanner that a lab ( or you ) could use to realise the real benefits of medium format film- and whilst I have a large quantity of scans from these and drum scanners, I have thousands of 6x6 and 67 slides that haven't been scanned. I've got some very nice prints sized between say 16" sq and 24" sq that had Imacon scans as an integral part of their journey. But then I think 1. When was the last time I had a batch of slides scanned? the only time I do that nowadays is for a Blurb book and for that application I get what I need from an Epson. Its years since I sold a large print from a slide- and indeed its years since I sold a large print full stop. I can't recall the last time I needed to make a scan that I couldn't make on a V700. 2. How many new scanning operations are starting off? Most of those I've used in the last twenty years don't operate any more. The few that do don't exactly flood my mailbox with excited notifications that they've bought new scanners. The feeling you get is that when their scanners break, that'll be the cue to close their scanning business. So have Imacon/Hasselblad discontinued these scanners? Or have we done it for them by not scanning, and not patronising the scanning sources that might buy Flextights? I'm sad to see a good product go - though it doesn't mean that the scanners out there will stop working right away. They can't keep their product line going if no-one buys it. All of which doesn't make it any less sad, but does make it expected.

I can't say that filters can't go bad over time, though I've had non-Kaesemann polarisers for decades that haven't, so its not universal. I was intrigued by your term "some recent shots" having been affected which might mean that some aren't. If so , is it possible that your problem is caused primarily by flare? Flare has caused me many more problems when using filters, than issues with the filters themselves. It would cause reductions in colour saturation and would be worse if the filter wasn't entirely clean. Using a filter does increase the chances of flare.

I also use the 24-105L and a 70-200L . The frustration is that the 70-200 is IMO the better lens but because the 25-105 is most often on the camera I use that for the "overlap" territory much more often than the longer zoom. Which costs me some quality. If I'd bought a 24-70 I wouldn't be able to be so lazy and I suspect get sharper images right from 24-105 than I do right now.

The problem here is not measuring exposure, its the dynamic range of the film you used. There are all sorts of ways you can measure light, and several of them will work in experienced hands. But none of them will alter the fact that there are many occasions ( and this is one) where the range of the scene is greater than you can accurately get onto slide film, particularly Velvia. So you're left with Using a ND grad over the top half or 2/3 of the picture depending on what effect you find most pleasing Using neg film which has a greater dynamic range Maybe trying fill flash on the foreground to increase exposure there Using a digital camera which combines wider dynamic range with (IMO) increased ease of adjusting exposures of part(s) of the picture in post. On the other hand photography isn't just about blindly trying to correctly expose each part of the image so it looks just like it did to the eye. In your picture, if you get the foreground much lighter it's going to change the balance of the scene and what the image looks like, and not necessarily for the better. As the photographer, you have to choose what you want us to look at, and the answer might not be "everything".

I've done quite a lot of winter photography in cold countries these last few years. You're right that standing around especially at night seems a great deal colder than if you're walking or in and out of a vehicle. I have a McMurdo Parka. It works pretty well. It's just a pain to take on a trip because its so bulky. Sometimes though there is just no alternative to something like this. Couple of other points. I always wear a neck warmer in winter- stops the cold air penetrating at the top and you can pull it over your mouth. I don't wear jeans , but thermally-lined walking trousers that are also windproof. I also have a waterproof version as I really hate having to put on overtrousers. My layers tend to be a Patagonia long sleeved , usually merino or similar base layer . Then a double weight fleece with lots of pockets for batteries and phones, usually from North Face. Then the Parka. I also wear snow boots rather than walking boots - higher, much more insulation. Getting all this stuff in my bag isn't fun.

This one just caught my eye. I have thousands of scanned MF slides (6x6/6x7) using scanners from a V700 flatbed with Betterscan holders, through Coolscan 9000; through to Imacon and true drum scans mainly on Heidelberg. This is where I come out. The Imacon and drum scans give me huge scans that I can use to make very large prints- I've gone to 30" square to get prints that do not rely on viewing distance to seem sharp. So for me the hybrid approach can get me prints that realise the full potential of a MF slide or negative in terms of print size and sharpness. On the other hand the V700 flatbed gets me a file that looks good printed to say 12" square, either as a print or in a Blurb book. For me, a flatbed scan does not give me the full potential of the original film. But of course most of the time I'm scanning is to use a legacy colour slide or b&w neg in a book or on a screen. For which it is completely satisfactory. I can get a bigger, better print from my Canon 5Diii than I can from MF film if using an Epson flatbed. Using a Coolscan or better (Imacon/Drum scan) reverses this conclusion. I can understand the remarks made by the OP in his first post. Whilst its likely that experience and other software might well improve his scans, I would doubt , personally, the ability to get consistently better images this way than from a good dslr/mirrorless camera. Others may feel differently but I feel that it is notably easier and less time consuming to edit and improve a good digital original than it is to edit and improve a scan from MF slides.

Hi Four new galleries on website www.photography001.com Icebergs. A portfolio of massive icebergs close-up from Greenland Estuaries. A collection of "mouth of the river" photos from NW England Ice. Beach ice from Iceland and lake ice from Arctic Norway Fall Foliage. Totally new autumn colour pictures from various parts of Scotland.

If you're going to Iceland in summer and sticking primarily to the Ring Road and the few other major thoroughfares, you don't need an expensive photo tour unless you're averse to doing a bit of research, buying a decent map, booking your own hotels and finding your own food. Its as easy to book a hotel in Iceland as it is in USA/UK- pretty much everyone speaks English. If you're going in the winter its a different story unless you're experienced in driving in severe weather and strong winds. I did once go on a trip to the north-west fjords as part of a photo group led by a USA photographer and concluded that we could easily and far more cheaply fix it up ourselves and get a lot more flexibility in terms of getting out for dawn and arranging dinner around ( not in the middle of) the best photo light. In summer you don't need 4wd unless you're planning to spend time on the smaller gravel roads normally carrying an "F" prefix. The tarmac roads and indeed most of the gravel roads are fine for 2wd You can use a credit card to buy fuel. Some "gas stations" are just a couple of pumps with a card authorisation machine- no people; no help. Best to have more than one card available. Hotels , restaurants, car rental and fuel in Iceland are all expensive ; much of it very expensive. Think about $250/night or more for a hotel room that would equate to a Best Western or similar in USA. A small manual shift, low cost 4x4 SUV recently cost me about $120 a day with insurances. Think about $70 for two pizzas and a couple of small beers. For fish or lamb (except fish & chips ) think 4000-6000 ISK -$40-$60 for one main course plus starter, dessert, drinks in a restaurant. Portions aren't huge. The range of dishes available at most restaurants is small and there's not a lot of variation from one place to the next. Its a place you'll remember for its scenery not for the luxury of its hotels and its food. The quality of restaurant food has improved a lot but its still not a place for a gastronomic holiday. You could opt to save a bit by eating in the gas stations along route 1. Despite what I'm saying about prices you'll need to book hotels and possibly car well in advance. On the upside some of the photography is interesting and unique, though you'll need to venture beyond Reykjavik for that.

Regardless of how you perm the equipment, for what you mention its going to be a big bag and when loaded up its going to be heavy. Unless its packed full of dividers finding items like filters, cables etc will be difficult with the bag still on your shoulder and of course the fact you don't have to keep putting the bag down is a main reason why most of us who use shoulder bags do so. I speak as someone who for ten years travelled extensively with a shoulder bag with a medium format body , up to six lenses and sometimes a Mamiya 7 body plus lenses squeezed in in place of some of the slr lenses. Basically it was too heavy and it reached the point where I couldn't/didn't want to walk around with a 20lb + bag all day. And I think your bag will need to be bigger and will be materially heavier than the one I carried. If I were you I'd seriously question whether I'd want to photograph whilst carrying a laptop and supporting gear around with me. I'd put that in a different bag and not carry it whilst photographing. I'd also get good at relating the environment I'm going to be in to likely equipment needs and judging what I can leave at home/in the car/in a hotel room whilst I photograph more lightly loaded. For example I don't carry a tripod around towns & cities these days. But I will have one at my hotel and if there are shots I want that require one- eg shoot at night, blur people or water , I'll plan a specific session to do that. To my mind there's mostly a big difference between what you need to haul to a broad location , and what you need to have with you whilst you are photographing.

I guess for me the forums have always been the thing at Photo.net rather than posting photographs. V2 seems to have done nothing to arrest a decline in number of questions asked and the volume and quality of answers. A decade ago I used to have to ration my time on Photo.net to get other things done. Now there's scarcely ever an interesting new question and the site doesn't seem to have the volume and type of users to help when I have something where I need some input. I tried "no words" for a while but the charm of rummaging through my back catalog went off after a couple of months - and let me try and put this not unkindly- there is a big gulf between how I'd use "likes" and how I see other people using them and thoughts of back-scratching and unspoken reciprocal deals were increasingly in my mind. I found myself increasingly reluctant to join threads where the starter would "like" all or nearly all the submissions made on it. So still here, but not exactly active which is a pity as I'd like to be . I'm afraid I blame the last couple of generations of management for not spotting the decline and then spending lots of time & money on V2 which from my perspective has achieved little or nothing. I find myself thinking whether its worth the (unnecessary, self-inflicted) pain of logging in every time to see whether there's anything interesting on here , and deciding that the odds are against it so can't be bothered. I've never been a "can't be bothered " person regarding Photo.net; but I am now.