davidfink_photography

Hi Owen,

 

If your MX-EVS has the original Rollei screen, then you will be *amazed* by the improvement you will get with either a Maxwell or Beattie. I've had both in Rolleiflexes and Hasselblads, and while I prefer the Maxwell, either one would be a dramatic improvement.

 

Are you sure you want the split image aid? You might find that a plain Maxwell or Beattie is so much brighter that you don't need the split rangefinder. Matter of personal choice I guess.

Hi George,

 

I have seen some of your work, as well. And I agree with Jay -- it is very very good.

 

While I work mainly with Hasselblad (V series) and Rolleiflex (TLRs), I would echo the recommendations you've already received for Mamiya RB/RZ. Fits nicely within your stated budget, quality is outstanding, and the 6x7 format will be better for full length body shots than would 6x6.

 

Best wishes.

Hi Dmitry,

 

I did a quick sample for you today, with the Sonnar 180mm @ f/5.6, with a 21mm extension tube. This is approximately (but not quite) at closest focus distance.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7256802

 

Hope that helps,

 

David

Sorry Dmitry,

 

Can you view it like this?

 

 

Unfortunately, I don't have anything uploaded yet at closest distance with the 21mm tube. But I'll try to do something soon for you, maybe by the end of this week.

 

Best wishes.

Hi Dmitry,

 

Here's a recent portrait example with the Sonnar 180 and a 21mm tube (on a 500c/m):

 

 

It's not quite as close a crop as you are wanting, but then I wasn't at closest focus distance.

 

As far as the vignetting, I agree with Jenny.....nothing to worry too much about.

 

The 180 is a superb lens. Good luck.

Hi Nick,

 

Thanks. Some of those are really helpful, though, as you say, not people shots.

 

Somewhere I saw an image posted from the 50/2 that had (surprisingly) quite funky bokeh, and that gave me some pause. But the flower images at the link you provided certainly show gorgeous background character.

 

Still would love to see some portraits with this lens.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

Hi there,

 

Wondering whether anyone has been using the Zeiss ZF Makro-Planar 50mm f/2 (not

the ZF 50 f/1.4) for people shots, and could share some wide aperture samples

here.

 

I currently have the ZF 35/2 and 85/1.4, and enjoy both of these very much.

 

On a DX size sensor, 50mm often is an excellent focal length for head/shoulders

shots, and I would be interested in the Zeiss if its "look" were more pleasing

than my Nikon 50/1.4 or 45 Ai-P.

 

Again, it is the ZF Makro-Planar 50mm f/2 I am inquiring about, not the ZF

50/1.4.

 

Thanks.

 

David

You might find this comparison interesting that I posted a couple of weeks ago at dpreview:

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=24333303

ThumbsPlus, by far.

John and Mike,

 

I started with the Dual Scan III and within months upgraded to the 5400. No comparison. Digital ICE, alone, is a *major* time saver....it works marvelously well, and even on the lightest setting (using Vuescan, which allows selection of three levels of ICE) there is usually little or no dust removal required in Photoshop.

 

The increased resolution is, of course, also a major advantage when large prints are desired.

 

Speed-wise, at a comparable dpi setting, the 5400 is at least as fast as the DS-III, even with ICE engaged.

 

It is, indeed, a worthy upgrade. But please plan to run Vuescan, rather than the bundled Minolta software. Vuescan is both more intuitive and more flexible (at least for me).

Hi Marcos,

 

Whatever you've read concerning the 5400 and Vuescan must be very dated. Vuescan has worked well with the 5400 (including ICE) since at least last November. I'm not sure what the absolute most current version of Vuescan is....I think I'm using version 8.10 (or something close to that). Of course, with the Pro license you get unlimited free updates, and I'm often an update or two behind!

 

Best wishes,

 

David

Hi Les,

 

How are you doing?

 

Yes....I originally bought 5-packs of 160VC and 160NC for portrait work, but then decided to try a roll of VC outdoors in bright conditions for some landscape shots. I was very pleasantly surprised by the results.

When these threads come up, I seldom see anyone mentioning Portra 160VC. Recently I tried a roll outdoors in bright sunlight and was very pleased. Good color, and it scanned extremely well (much better than Reala for me) with Vuescan and Minolta 5400.

Hi Nathanael,

 

I also use the Minolta 5400. You might want to try Vuescan instead of Silverfast, because with Vuescan you can set three different levels of ICE. I always scan with ICE at the lowest level, and find that it does a wonderful job of dust/scratch removal without introducing noticeable softening or artifacts.

I agree with Mendel that Vuescan is a worthwhile purchase...and that the pro version is the way to go.

 

(Current version works fine with the 5400's infrared channel.)

 

Just be aware that, as with everything involving scanning, there is a bit of learning curve with Vuescan. Stick with it, and once you get the hang of it you will never go back to the Minolta software.

I have all my rolls of negative film developed and cut in sixes, which makes scanning with the 5400 extremely efficient.

 

But, if you have fewer than six negatives in a strip, it still is easy to batch scan.....particularly if you're using Vuescan, where you can select how many frames in each strip to batch, for example frames 1-5 or 1-4 and thereby skip any blank frames on the end of each strip.

"At a time when a great deal of effort seems to be being made to rehabilitate the reputation of Reifenstahl I feel it's important to provide a reasoned counterbalance."

 

Fair enough, and thanks for clarifying your intent. My take is that the need for "counterbalance" continues to be in the opposite direction, as efforts to villify Riefenstahl and discredit her work have been vigorous and ongoing for more than half a century.

 

By the way, if you haven't read it, this essay assesses condemnations of Riefenstahl, and argues that her detractors (Sontag included) fail to appreciate the anti-feminist dynamics at work both in the circumstances of Riefenstahl's seduction by Nazi ideology and in the failure of her later critics to grant her the same presumption of change as that accorded to many male artists of the Nazi time. It's good reading:

 

http://www.powernet.net/%7Ehflippo/cinema/tiefland.html

"Thanks for this considered response. If you want to drag things into the gutter I'll cheerfully slither down and join you."

 

Well, I'm afraid you'll have to slither alone, Boris. Civility, good humor, and rational discourse is much my preference. :-)

 

By the way, you chose not to respond to the substantive point I was making (and yes it was considered) regarding freedom of expression in the context of academic legitimacy, an important area in which Hitler, as I assume you know, was a very destructive force. I meant nothing personal about you; sorry if the parallel I drew with your earlier point made you defensive. Again, nothing personal was intended.

 

"I think you're being disingenuous."

 

Well, that is a bit unkind, I must say. My only defense is to assure you that I have no need to feign ignorance, for I never seem to lack in that attribute!

 

"On the one hand you're passing yourself off as a scholar of modern German history"

 

Hardly! All I said was that I like to believe that I have considerably more than a "cursory" (your word) understanding of German history. A long way from qualifying as a scholar. History is not my professional field, though it is a personal interest of long standing.

 

"You never came across the Sontag reference to the Nuba work being the final part of Riefenstahl's 'triptych of fascist visuals'...?...I disagree with a great deal of Sontag's output, but on this I believe she's right on the mark."

 

You're refering to the review of the Nuba work which Sontag wrote in 1975, more than a quarter century ago?

 

Here's a brief evaluation of that review's lingering impact on Riefenstahl's reputation:

http://www.dasblauelicht.net/new_page_42.htm

 

Actually, I may be somewhat the opposite of you, in that I generally appreciate and agree with Susan Sontag, but on this I think she may have missed the mark badly. I guess, given our opposing takes on Riefenstahl, it is no surprise that you and I would assess that review differently. Thanks for reminding me of it, because (as you know) it certainly was an influential critique of Riefenstahl at the time, and it helps me to understand somewhat better how you've come to your opinions.

 

 

"Why is defending the honour of Leni so important to you?"

 

Points of controversy often draw my interest. The Riefenstahl matter is particularly interesting, I suppose, because it's such an iconic illustration of the collision of political and artistic values. Don't know if you're in the U.S., but in this election year there are inevitably echoes of that collision that seep in around the edges of campaign rhetoric, usually couched in terms like "social values" and the implied admonition that artists conform to some group's definition of "correct" values. Perhaps that climate makes me more sensitive than usual to attacks on art based on the presumed political agendas of artists. On the other hand, maybe it's just that I like the Riefenstahl photos, and choose to evaluate her motives psychologically rather than politically.

 

One might also inquire of you why imputing sinister motives to Riefenstahl's photography is so important? Of course you have every right to your views, just as I have the right to remain unconvinced. As I said earlier, it *is* an interesting discussion, and I thank you for raising the points that you have.

I have both Neat Image and Noise Ninja. I prefer Noise Ninja (version 2), but both products are excellent and keep improving.

"as I believe in freedom of expression, I see no reason to hold a narrow view of what constitutes 'legitimate scholarship'".

 

On this you are in agreement (ironically) with Hitler, who felt free to populate German university faculties with "scholars" whose ideas would have had no chance to find legitimacy in the rigorous mainstream of academia.

 

Importantly, professional standards in the sciences and humanities recognize that freedom of expression must operate also within a process of scholarly review, so that unsubstantiated and specious ideas can be differentiated from ideas based on evidence. That's why there are, for example, refereed journals in most professional fields.

 

"As a related example, I'm uncomfortable with the hounding of David Irving - I think it makes no sense to engage him emotionally rather than rationally."

 

I agree with you on this. Emotional hounding is no substitute for rational evaluation. Interestingly, in his recent two-volume Hitler biography (which I am just finishing), Ian Kershaw cites Irving on a number of points, and does so with fairness and objectivity.

 

"There's been no shortage of critical debate regarding the Nuba images."

 

Yes, of course there are many critiques of Riefenstahl's work (as there should always be for art), but I am unfamiliar with any that mirror your peculiar concern that the Nuba images somehow were part of Riefenstahl's intended mission to further a sinister Nazi agenda. Could you point me to some references that articulate that specific viewpoint?

"'Current views' on environmentalism and anthropology cover a pretty wide base"

 

Granted.

 

"and not all of those views are divergent from those held by the Nazis."

 

None within the scope of legitimate scholarship. Certainly there are fringe kooks and extremists, but without any credibility or academic status.

 

"I see nothing in the later work and concerns of Reifenstahl that would make me feel entirely comfortable as to her motivations."

 

Well, you're certainly entitled to your own suspicions and reactions. I've never seen or heard any evidence to support your view, nor read any critiques that share it. But I can't persuade you toward a differing perspective, because (as the old saw has it) it's difficult to prove a negative.

 

Interesting discussion, to be sure. Thanks for raising the issues that you did.

 

Best wishes,

David

Boris, the Nazi interests and agenda were manifestly *not* what we now refer to as "environmentalism" and "anthropology". Lebensraum and a twisted and racist social Darwinianism could hardly be further removed from current views on environmentalism and anthropology, as well as from the activities and causes that Riefenstahl was championing in the last decades of her life. To attempt to draw such a connection is specious at best.

You wrote: "And one might also argue, if one has even the most cursory knowledge of German history, that her environmental and anthropological concerns were actually a reflection of the fact that she never shook off her Nazi past."

 

I'd like to believe that I have considerably more than a cursory knowledge of German history. I must confess, however, that the point of your remark about Riefenstahl eludes me. Are you suggesting that her activism in later life was inspired by some kind of sinister Nazi agenda? (That would seem absurd in the extreme.) Or are you suggesting that her lingering unacknowledged guilt from the Nazi associations of her youth may have motivated her later in life to become an activist for worthy causes. (On that we would be in agreement, as that was precisely the point of my speculations.)

You obviously have very strong feelings about this, and have expressed them forcefully and well.

 

However, did you miss Frank's post above, where he said:

 

"Yes it costs her much to say "sorry", but I think at least in her last years she could do it to some extend.. There is a 3 hours-documentary film about her work which ends with *at least* a word of regret and sorry. She also admitted that she was convinced to Hitler until the war. I think this is honest. It is well known that she cancelled her job as war reporter immediatly after she saw the cruels oft the Wehrmacht in Poland. Maybe it was her tragedy she was too weak, ambitious, opportunistic to opposit against Hitler."

 

I haven't personally seen the documentary that Frank refers to, but I certainly take him at his word that Riefenstahl offered at least a halting expression of regret.

 

An "enabler" is perhaps an apt term for her role before the war, and clearly she turned a blind eye to the signs of terror and brutality all around her.

 

But again, it seems to me that the real question is whether her photographic work fifty years on from the war should be completely villified and dismissed, as you insist, on the basis of her admittedly skewed moral compass during the Nazi time.

 

In psychological terms (not to paint too fine a diagnostic picture of this, mind you), one might argue that her environmental and anthropological activism in later years attests in part to her need to compensate behaviorally for earlier moral shortcomings. Sometimes reaction formation is the nearest a tortured soul can come to a full confessional reckoning.

It is obvious, I hope, that no one would assert a moral equivalence between Bush and Hitler. Still, the point remains that artists living under *whatever* regime should have the merits of their work judged independently of the political rulers of the time. Where propaganda is a primary objective of the art, then of course that becomes part of the criteria to be weighed in evaluating the artistic merits. But, as in Riefenstahl's case, if additional work lies outside the realm of propagandistic intent, then I think it highly unfair to dismiss the lot based on political motives from a half century earlier.