derick_miller1

October 17, 1998

I decided not to get the Bender because it has limited extention if you want to use older portrait lenses for "head and shoulders" portraits.

To get a 1:1 image, you need twice the focal length of your lens in extention.

This may not be an issue for you.

Derick

September 6, 1998

I do not mean to discourage you. I enjoy taking pictures hand-held with a Crown Graphic. But I would not consider it nearly as easy as it would be with a modern MF camera.

Comments on the Graphics:

If you are planning to use these hand-held with the range-finder and a modern lens, I suggest you go to graflex.org and pick up some details about the rangefinders. You will want to be sure that you can couple the range-finder with your lens of choice.

These cameras will never be as fluid in use as a relatively modern MF camera. You have to look through one opening to focus (the range-finder). You have to use a viewer of one sort or another to compose your shot. You have to set aperture and depth of field on the lens in front of the camera (not visible from the back). You have to cock the shutter on the front. You have to either load and unload sheet-film and have a place for exposed and unexposed holders. Or you can use a roll-film back, but then you are shooting MF anyway. Of course there is polaroid (although this has its own set of inconveniences).

Of course, many of the greatest spontanious images were captured with these cameras in the days of yore, when one photographer could do with very slow film what ten photographers today cannot....

The question we cannot answer for you is if this camera will work with your working style.

A couple MF alternatives that will be fluid and offer a large negative (6x7): Mamiya 7 (very expensive) and Fuji's line of rangefinders (less expensive). If you are planning to buy a modern 4x5 lens, the alternatives in quality MF seem less dear. You can get a Speed Graphic with a good older lens for under $400, but a modern lens will set you back a bit more.

Derick

September 6, 1998

I would like to know the filter size for the internal end of the Rodenstock Sironar 360/f6.8 lens (the pre-APO version).

Having looked at it, it does not appear to have threads. Is it

possible to get an adapter and mount a standard filter size? It

looks to be about 80mm (82?).

Has anyone figured out a way to do this?

Thanks,

Derick

July 5, 1998

I have the Mamiya 7 with 65 mm and 150 mm lenses.

The performance at minimum focus (1 meter for the 65, 1.8 meters for the 150--about 6 feet) and maximum aperture (f4 for the 65, f4.5 for the 150) is very good. I have done a lot of shooting wide open at these distances.

It is also possible to hand-hold this camera at shutter speeds well below what you can do with an SLR. What works for you will depend on your capabilities and technique, but I would think you could gain 2-3 stops based on what you can do with an SLR.

This minimum focal distance with the 150 may be the most annoying thing about the camera. You cannot take a head and shoulders portrait without cropping, for example.

Optimum performance with both lenses is probably f 8 to f 11. I am basing this on real pictures, not lens tests. If you want tests, there are others on this forum who have tested these lenses.

I have read that "you cannot tell the difference between MF and 35mm until you get to 11x14." It is not true for me. I have shot Tri-x with the same subject and lighting conditions in 35 mm and 120. The difference is striking in an 8x10. The tonal range is better and the grain is less pronounced. I have not pushed more than a stop, but I expect the results would be similar.

I have wondered about the trade-off between a 6x7 negative with a three stop disadvantage (f 4 vs f 1.4) against the better rendition of grainier film by comparing, say, Tri-x at 400 in 35mm vs Tri-x at 3200 in 120, and printing to 8x10 or 11x14, but I haven't done any practical experiments.

This sounds more like a religious issue :-). The 6 costs less, which is the only thing to recommend it (some would argue that the folding lens is a worthy advantage). Although I neither own nor intend to own the 43 mm lens, the availability of this lens as a rental would be enough to convince me that the 7 is the better choice.

As for shooting verticals, I find the 7 works fine for this. The right quick-release plate on the bottom (or a home-made handle which mounts to the tripod socket) could help by providing an easier left-hand grip, if you wanted to do a lot of vertical shots without a tripod.

My advice: if you are going to print rectangles, get a 6x7. If you are going to print squares, get a 6x6. If you shoot a 6 and a 7 both vertical and decide to crop horizontal, you will get the same results (although the 6 does give you two more shots per roll).

It all depends on what you are shooting. This camera is not appropriate for, say, table-top photography. Table-top photography, live performance (theater, ballet, etc.) and landscape photography are the main applications where a spot meter would help. It is also nice for checking lighting on background, but this can be done with a reflected meter held close.

Based on your questions about large apertures and 1-2 meter distances , it sounds like you will be working without a tripod, at close range and, presumably, taking pictures of people. For this use, the onboard meter is accurate enough. Just use your head to deal with back-lighting and very dark or light elements that dominate the scene (snow, brides dresses, tuxedos, black backdrops). In any case, you must really use your head with a spot meter or it will do you more harm than good :-).

If you are not using a spot-meter now, I suspect you don't need one. If you are trying to do serious landscape work, or in some other way are using the zone system, it might be worth it. Photographing performers on a stage with theatrical lighting would be a good reason to have a spot meter.

If my guess is correct and you are taking pictures of people, than an ambient meter (the kinds with the white domes) would be your best choice. But you could also buy a gray card for under $20 and get effectively the same results with proper use.

Will you be using strobes? If so, I suggest a flash meter might be your best addition. The 7 is not set up to meter flash, so if you plan to use more than one or do anything fancy with strobes, a flash meter would be an excellent investment. Again, ambient reading of flash would probably be best in most cases.

You can get a meter that will do both ambient and spot metering. There is a 5 degree spot attachment available for most professional meters, and the sekonic 408 and 508 have spots built in (down to 1 degree on the 508).

<Here's another question for the list (based on some experience with a 6): can you do double exposures? >

No. The only way is to run the roll through the camera a second time (although someone might figure out how to alter the camera ;-)

Another note, check the point of focus carefully with each lens. Quality control at Mamiya is a bit slack in this area.

Other than the shortcomings discussed, the lenses are outstanding and the camera is a pleasure to use. If I could have only one camera, this would be it, but I do find a lot of use for 4x5 and 35 mm.

The last thing I will say is probably the best advice I could give you: rent before you buy. This is a very expensive camera, and you can learn a lot by trying it out. $30-40 will give you a weekend to try it out and develop some film.

Look at the results for yourself and see how the camera works for you--are there things which annoy you or make it difficult to take the pictures you want. I would also suggest that you rent with one lens at a time.

Since your preference is the 65 mm and 150 mm lenses, I suggest you start with the 65 mm for one weekend and the 150 mm for another weekend. $60-80 in rental and the cost of film and processing will teach you a lot about the system and how it works for the type of pictures you like to take.

Derick

June 15, 1998

"What is normal?"

There are various ways in which it has been defined. By custom, 50-55mm on 35mm film (24x36), 80mm on 6x6, 90mm on 6x7, etc. This is what has been supplied as the "normal" lens by most manufacturers, and what most people seem to refer to as "normal."

I am aware of two definitions: the diagonal of the film which is exposed and "what the normal human eye sees."

If we take the diagonal, the 35mm normal should be about 43mm, the 6x6 is indeed about 80mm, etc.

If we take the definition of what the normal human eye sees, it becomes more complicated by the fact that peoples area of sharp focus and peripheral vision are different (our eyes do not function as typical photographic lenses, a bit more like the Diana :-).

Derick

May 22, 1998

My second question should have read "Does anyone have experience developing Tech Pan with a rotary processor" :-)

May 22, 1998

The photoflex adaptor is, indeed, very handy and costs about $20.

More studio on a budget ideas:

Reflectors:

Some windshield reflectors (made to protect your car from getting too hot in the sun) have reflective colored surfaces. Silver and Gold could be used as reflectors. Cost $3 on sale.

Background:

Muslin can be purchased in 108" width for very little. This can be used as is as a grey background, which can go anywhere between white and black, depending on how you light it or, using gels, any color you want. You can also paint these (see recent shutterbug article on painting your own background) Cost $4 per yard (you might be able to do better).

For rolls to hang muslin, go to a store which sells carpet. Cost $0 with a friendly attitude :-) Brass curtain rod, 5/8" up to 10' long, $15.

Scrims and Softbox:

Scrims which can be used as scrims or to act as a variable sized soft box. To make them you will need a frame and some rip-stop nylon. Adjustable metal frame (4'x5' rectangle with legs, designed to hang clothing), used $4. Ripstop nylon $4 per yard. Small curtain rods to fit in hoop sewn in top and bottom of rip stop, $3 each. Brackets to hold second layer about a foot out from the frame, $2. Adjust the affect by varying the distance of your light source from the scrim between the light source and subject. Vary the diffusion by using one or two layers of ripstop with a gap between them.

You sacrifice some portability and convenience, but the cost is significantly reduced.

May 22, 1998

I was wondering what agitation you use with Tech Pan. I have heard that it requires an unusual agitation method.

Also, does anyone have experience using a continuous roller to process tech pan?

Thanks,

Derick

May 8, 1998

...and don't forget to test the film you plan to use! If you are used to B & W, I strongly suggest you shoot some of the color film you plan to use in lighting conditions similar to those you expect to encounter or create. What works fine with Tri-X will not necessarily work well with a color print film.

I saw some interesting Asian wedding photos done with Agfa film and paper--very punchy. Of course, you are getting "Agfa" colors, which are not necessarily true colors, but the look was very interesting.

Derick

April 24, 1998

A few points about the discussion on this thread:

I think we are discussing two issues about sync speed of flash meters: how long you have to fire the flash for the

meter to read it, and if the meter reads as though you have e the shutter open for a given period of time, taking into

account the contributions of the ambient and strobe light.

The Luna Star F2 gives 45 seconds to read a flash. I believe the Luna Pro F and Minolta give one minute in cordless

mode. I presume a meter could be designed to wait until the battery ran out to read a flash. Perhaps the Wein meter

does wait as long as you want.

Most of the digital flash meters have shutter speed settings, which take ambient light into account. This is especially

valuable if you have a leaf shutter (which can sync at any speed) and want to use ambient light as a significant

contribution to the lighting. If you look at the B & H page on meters:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/photo/meters/navigation.html

you will see from the specifications which speeds are supported for ambient reading and which speeds are supported

for flash metering. The more expensive meters usually offer a range of options.

About inexpensive options:

To go much below $65, you would probably want to buy used. There seem to be a lot of discontinued models of

simple flash meters. If you want to go this route, I suggest KEH, since many on the net have found them to be

honest, or a local dealer you trust.

The Wein meter will give a basic reading for flash and costs about $65. I have handled but not used this meter. It

looks very different. It will not read ambient light, just flash at 1/250th.

If you want the basics, don't mind a lesser brand and reading in half-stop increments from an LED, the Shepherd

FM990 does seem to provide a reasonable mix of features for about $100. This meter is limited, but I think it will

cover basic work. I have not handled or used this meter.

If you want ambient capability, shutter speed options, greater accuracy and sync chord firing capability (I consider

these the essential features), you probably have to spend about $200 for a major brand. I think the Gossen Luna Pro

Digital F meter might be a good choice at about $200, but I haven't been able to find the technical specifications on

it.

Derick

April 21, 1998

I am buying a used meter, and I thought I would do some simple tests to verify that it is working correctly. I am using the ambient mode on both meters. I was surprised to find a difference between the two that was not consistent (the number of stops difference varied from none to two stops).

Both meters are Gossen meters. I checked the battery on both before testing. I have been careful to place the domes in the same position and angle. I have been careful about not letting shadow fall on the meter while making the reading. I have been careful to let the meter get a full reading. The domes are of different sizes, although I would not expect this to make such a difference (am I wrong about this).

Also, any suggestions for testing the flash metering capability? I intend to rent a flash meter to verify against.

Any suggestions about what I might be doing wrong or how I could do this better would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Derick

April 12, 1998

Barak,

There are a number of good books available. I suggest Henry Horenstien's books as a good starting place: "Black and White Photography," "Beyond Basic Photography" and "Color Photography" (about $20 each new, often available used). I think they will give you the information you need. Another good book is "An Ansel Adams Guide: Basic Techniques of Photography" by John Schaefer (about $30 new, harder to find used), which brings together extensive quotes

from Adams works with good explanations of the basics. Adams own books are a bit more sophisticated "Camera," "Negative" and "Print" (about $20 each new in paperback) and "Examples, the Making of 40 Photographs."

What I would really suggest is that you take a basic class. There is a lot to know about equipment and process which is easily taught in a class or in person with equipment, but which is difficult to learn from a book. Once you have the rudiments, you can go a long way with books and experience. Classes at a community college will give you inexpensive access to equipment. At the end of a basic class that teaches black and white development and printing, you will be in a much better place to get answers to your questions.

To think about processing your images at home, you should first think about two distinctions. The first is between developing the film (negatives or trasparancies/slides) and making the prints. The second is between color and black and white.

DEVELOPING FILM

There is a big difference between developing color film and developing black and white film. Relatively speaking, black and white is cheaper, simpler, takes less equipment and doesn't smell as bad.

BLACK AND WHITE

To develop black and white film, you need a tank, a reel, a changing bag/box or light-tight room, scissors, a can opener (if you are using 35 mm film), a thermometer, something to measure volume (such as a graduated cylinder), something to time the process (such as a clock with a second-hand), something to wash the film in, clips and a place to hang film to dry, a developer (such as D-76) and a fixer with hardener. To keep it simple, get premixed chemicals. Water can be used as a stop (I don't mean to start a flame war, just to keep the minimum starting point :-). Black and white film can be developed at room temperature.

I suggest you start with Kodak Tri-X, since it will forgive a lot of mistakes (in photo terminology, it has a greater latitude in development and a greater latitude in exposure). I also recommend the Jobo 1500 system, although you could save some initial money going with another system like a Patterson compatible. If you get the Jobo system, get the "Cascade film washer #3350" for about $10. It will let you use the developing tank as a film washer.

I am not affiliated with Jobo or Kodak, except as a satisfied customer. I suggest you look at the web pages and get the literature from Jobo to gain a basic understanding of the technology. Even if you go with another system, you can get an idea how it works.

http://www.kodak.com

http://www.jobo-usa.com/jobofoto/

Different films have different development requirements (time, agitation, etc.) and a lot of variance is possible. If the information doesn't come with the film, you can find it easily on-line.

COLOR FILM

Color film developing requires precise control of temperature which is above room temperature in most cases. It is expensive in small quantities and is more difficult to control. There are two basic types: C-41 for negatives and E-6 for slides. Kodachrome processing requires specialized equipment and is probably not practical at home. Most other processing methods have become obsolete. Kodak's new IR film can even use a standard process, now.

Again, look at the Jobo equipment to gain a basic understanding of the technology. In the Literature section, you will find a newsletter option which archives old articles. You can read about how to process and problems people have run into.

You can buy the chemicals in kits. You will need a way to control temperature at a minimum. The basic investment is probably at least $100 more than for black and white.

MAKING THE PRINTS

This area involves a significant investment in equipment. Again, black and white is simpler and cheaper than color. In either case, you will need an enlarger with lens and timer, chemical trays, a dark room, a way to hold the paper, filters, a print washing method and a print drying method. There are a number of other things you will almost certainly want, including safe-lights, ventilation, tongs, focusing aids, air cans or bulbs, etc. At a minimum, we are talking about several hundred dollars.

I have never used it, but the Daylab may be an alternative that limits some of these needs. But there are a lot of practical disadvantages to such a system. I don't think you can make a sound decision without some practical experience.

I suggest you get access to a darkroom, if at all possible, before considering this step. There are commercial darkrooms where you can rent time in many areas. There are inexpensive classes offered in many community colleges, which will include training and darkroom use. If none of these are options in your area, find a local professional photographer and see if he or she is willing to make a deal to let you use equipment in exchange for money or barter.

HERE IS WHAT I DO

I process mostly 120 and some 35 mm and 220 black and white film at home. I have processed color film and prints at a school lab, but I prefer to have color handled by a pro lab. I do most of my printing at commercial or school darkrooms.

I expect to set up my own darkroom in the next couple months, probably using the Nova system instead of trays, since the chemicals can be stored long-term and be ready to use quickly. A 20 minute session in the darkroom makes sense with such a system. Otherwise, much time would be spent setting up trays, pouring out chemicals, emptying and cleaning trays. Also, fumes are reduced and space is economized. There are some other disadvantages (such as not being able to watch a print come up).

As a side note, a friend set up a darkroom at home and never used it. She found that the company of others was an important part of the experience for her--comparing results, offering suggestions, general community feelings, etc.

I prefer pre-mixed chemicals because it is simpler and safer than powder concentrates (I have small children and the concentrated powders are more dangerous)--there is not a big cost issue here. If you use dry chemicals, you must by pre-measured packets or use a scale in most cases.

I started with stainless steel, which I was happy with, but I wanted to add 220 reels and more 120 reels and a better washing system, so I began considering plastic systems. I selected the Jobo 1500 system because I can load 2 rolls of 120 on one reel (saving in chemical use and allowing me to develop six rolls at a time in a reasonable sized tank--1520 and 1530 module together); if you shoot 35 mm in 12 exposure rolls, you can also load two on one reel. It is easier to pour chemicals quickly with this system. The system is easily extended with other accessories. I use the cascade film washer, which allows efficient film washing. Incidentally, it is probably easier to learn how to load plastic reels.

Best of luck,

Derick

To send mail, take out the "remove" from my address.

January 26, 1998

You have not mentioned your intended use(s) or experience with photography, which would have an impact on the advice people give.

Does weight or size matter to you? The 124G is smaller and lighter. Having only one lens is probably better at the beginning.

You can probably get your money back on any of these choices, presuming you don't buy a bad specimen or pay too much. So being limited to one lens might not be so bad.

Here is an alternative you probably have not considered:

You could also get a speed graphic family camera with a roll-film back. This is a real system camera, which allows for use of ground glass, interchangable backs, range-finder, etc. I have seen usable models, with lens, for as little as $100, although I would expect to spend about $300 for one in good condition with a reasonable lens. The smaller model can be quite handy, although I'm not sure you could get a polaroid back for it.

Derick

To send mail, remove the "spam."

November 7, 1997

I just ordered one (so I can't speak from experience :)

The reason I decided to get one is that it can be used bare bulb, which gives a different quality to the light. It also gives you light in all directions, which can be useful, depending on how you want to light the background.

I have seen others post that the quality of light using the parabolic reflector is different, but I don't have experience to comment.

October 27, 1997

Thanks for the feedback.

Perhaps I should ask a more general question:

What are reasonable, portable flash alternatives that allow for bare-bulb flash as an option?

Thanks,

Derick

October 26, 1997

I am considering buying a flash for use in environmental portraits (including some couples and small groups). I have not used a flash before and shoot mostly Tri-X. But some people want to have color, so I need some light help :-) (To support lower ISO, significantly less support for range of light and no ability to save the print in the darkroom).

I use a Mamiya 7, so I can sync at any speed. I prefer to have a bare bulb option (hence the two units I am considering are the Sunpak 120J and Quantum Q-Flash T2. The M7 does not have TTL, so I will be using the flash in Manual or Auto modes. I plan to use the flash on a bracket or off camera. I might one day get another light or two. I don't want the hard-light, taken-with-a-flash look in most circumstances.

I am open to other suggestions and would appreciate any feedback, comparisons of the units, discussion of add-on items, etc.

Derick

October 13, 1997

October 11th 1997, The Economist:

"In early 1996 Hasselblad was sold by Incentive, a holding company owned by the Swedish Wallenberg family, to USB Capital (a subsidiary of Union Bank of Switzerland), CINVen (a British venture capital firm), and Hasselblad's managers. The new owners want to make Hasselblad more profitable and then float it on the Stockholm stock exchange."

Hmmmm.....

August 11, 1997

The 6mf (Multi-format) supports the 35mm film use. The 6 does not. Some people prefer the 6 becuase it is less expensive and simpler (less confusing lines to support the 35mm film use) I read that Mamiya brought the 6 back into production because so many people complained about these new, so called features.

There is a good review of the Mamiya 6, which covers this in more detail:

http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/photo/mamiya-6.html

You can also get good information from the excellent Mamiya web page:

http://mamiya.com/

where you will find not only the marketing and technical information, but also a very good user forum. There are also some magazine reviews, all positive, as you might guess :-)

The only significant advantage I see in the 35mm support is that some emulsions are not available in 120/220 (such as Kodachrome). Otherwise, you are just getting a smaller version of what you will get on 120/220. If you want panoramic proportions, you can always crop that down.

You probably wouldn't want to process the film at a 1 hour lab, since they will be expecting standard format :-) Of course, if you are out on a trip and run out of 120, you could probably find some Kodak Gold anywhere in 35mm. Perhaps others who use this feature will have more ideas...

Derick

July 27, 1997

I asked on the Mamiya user forum, and got this from Martin Silvermann, a rep for Mamiya (who worked for Leica before he worked for Mamiya, incidentally). He was answering the question about what happens when you hunt with a coupled range finder camera like the Mamiya 7 or the Leica...

"you are using the cam roller mechanism and shifting the critical RF ever so slightly -enough to be off by an inch or so in focus. Going from near and stopping eliminates any mechanical play."

The Mamiya Web page is an excellent resource.

http://www.mamiya.com/

Derick

July 23, 1997

John Gaasland asked why it is better not to hunt with a rangefinder....

On a mechanical level, I don't know the answer to your question.

I have read the advice a few places (including the Mamiya home page user forum), but I have never heard the mechanical reason.

Does anyone here know?

But, if your camera isn't focusing correctly, I presume you want to see if this solution will work for you. I suggest an experiment or two...

On a practical level, put your camera on a tripod and try focusing

from near to far without hunting. Note where you end up by looking

at your lens. Then try focusing by hunting and see if the point

doesn't change.

If you want to pursue this experiment, use a yard-stick (or meter-stick) and place an object next to the stick which

will be the object you focus on. Open your lens wide open (to minimize the depth of field) and try the focusing experiments on

film. It is better to do this with the object relatively close to your camera, since depth of field gets bigger as the distance increases, and you will need a pretty big yard-stick :-) (At a

greater distance, you just need more objects at measured distance

from the object you are focusing on.)

With a field camera (like the speed graphic), the ground glass is

the best way to check this sort of problem. As Zonghou Xiong pointed out, there is an accessory for the GW690III that acts as ground glass. You might be able to make something for other cameras, but

you need to get it in exactly the same plane as the film. If you don't have ground glass, use film and take a series of pictures (with good notes or put something in the picture to say what you are doing).

Finally, evaluate the image on the ground glass or film with a loop and determine what is sharp. If the focus is correct, the depth of field should extend on both sides of the point of focus. In an ideal world, it will extend about the same amount in both directions. (If you don't have a loop, use a normal lens upside down. You can also use big prints, but that adds more variables.)

Derick

July 21, 1997

I can't do much better than the previous response, since I

have never used the GW690III, but I can point out a general

tip on Rangefinder focusing....

It is better to focus from near to far and not to hunt for

focus.

Near to far means setting the lens so the point of focus is

closer to the camera than the actual subject distance before

focusing. Many Rangefinder users make a habit of setting the

lens to focus on the closest possible point, and then focus.

Hunting means switching between in- and out-of-focus to narrow

the gap, passing the point of correct focus with a narrower pass

until you are in focus. This makes your focus less accurate.

Derick

July 12, 1997

While we are on the topic, has anyone used both the Zeiss Softar (either brand) AND the B+H Soft Image? If so, how do they compare?

I do realize that one costs about six times as much as the other,

so feel free to say what you really think ;-)

Derick

dmiller at geoworks "here is where you put the dot" com

June 18, 1997

I would like to hear about people's experiences, good or bad,

with the Mamiya 7 150mm lens. Some people have posted about

problems focusing properly (problems with the rangefinder?).

I know that the lens will not focus closer than 1.8 meters, so it

will not do a proper head-shot without cropping. Any other disadvantages?

Any thoughts on the region outside of the depth of field (boke or bokeh). Specifically, how does it do with bright highlights outside of the area of sharp focus?

Thanks for any responses.

Derick

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by derick_miller1