kipling

Jung Yang, jul 16, 2006; 11:14 p.m. <p> beaut.

Rene Braun, jul 16, 2006; 08:54 p.m. <p>

Nice.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kipling/168470671/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/73/168470671_5fd887db3a_o.jpg" width="476" height="700" alt="" /></a>

The AIS version. I have it and it is a fantasticly shapr lens and highly corrected for almost no barrel distortion. fantastic bokeh as well.

use an old grocery bag. duct tape the bottom to reinforce it. cut the front ends off your shoes. shyt your pant and beat yourself in the face before you leave the house. you'll be invisible and you can carry all your leica stuff without worring about being mugged.

thought i'd throw in some digital nikon pics to counter weight the canon digital stuff here on the leica forum

<center><img src="http://static.flickr.com/69/172108000_352fff779d_o.jpg" width="965" height="700" alt="" /></a></center>

<center><img src="http://static.flickr.com/56/176106674_0d8e1b2a64_o.jpg" width="800" height="536" alt="" /></a></center>

<center><img src="http://static.flickr.com/45/176106676_12fa978f3d_o.jpg" width="800" height="536" alt="" /></a></center>

<center><img src="http://static.flickr.com/60/176106677_0a0c8468ea_o.jpg" width="800" height="546" alt="" /></a></center>

<center><img src="http://static.flickr.com/66/177558033_1c2ee2c267_o.jpg" width="553" height="800" alt="�" /></a></center>

<center><img src="http://static.flickr.com/56/179648911_c7c3daa024_o.jpg" width="800" height="535" alt="" /></a></centter>

<center><img src="http://static.flickr.com/47/183259136_5607eba461_o.jpg" width="800" height="536" alt="" /></a></center>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/45/176106676_12fa978f3d_o.jpg" width="800" height="536" alt="" /></a>

I'd recommend the rodenstock sironar N 5,6 210mm. a good lens that will give you a nice working distance for portraits.

boris, put your chaps back on, shave your titties, take guy's head out of your saggy, disco-daddy arse and post some pics. you've been in your cave too long - time to post some of those trademark b.c.han street shots : D

what andrew is saying is very true and that's why there's the 250 apo - an excellent lens for beauty + head shots.

the 180 doesn't have a floating element, but it's a nice lens and very sharp for normal portraits. for really close shots and maximum sharpness you should get the 140mm f/4.5 macro with the floating element.

btw, if you're ever in need of a good goat film...porta is also good for that.

<p>

<center><img src="http://static.flickr.com/22/31997937_6a04f2dc6f_o.jpg" width="453" height="680" alt="goat" /></a></center>

<center><img src="http://static.flickr.com/39/121356057_99346a6f74_o.jpg" width="800" height="536" alt="josi.straw" /></a></center>

<p>

can't really do much wrong shooting kids. get in close would be my only suggestion.

yes, there's no better camera for going from landscape to portrait than with mamiya. one little flick of a clip and you just revolve the back - fantastic, especially if you need to have the camera is locked down on a tripod.

<i>one last question: how many of you guys still do polas before taking a shot in critical light situation ? </i> <p>

depends. if it's for a job or my book and i'm using strobes then always. if i'm just out shooting then rarely.

ah, du bist deutsch...es war eine kampagne f�r wella und ich habe es mit felix lammers (http://www.felixlammers.com/index_home.htm) gemacht. er hat mit den rz photgraphiert, wie fast alle portrait, fashion und beauty photographen, wenn sie nicht digital schieߥn. die kannst du auch �berall mieten in hamburg (studio aplanat, calumet, seven eleven, ...). <p>

also, hau rein. kipling

6x6 vs. 6x7. which do you prefer? <p>

i've had both and they are both excellent cameras. the rollei is highly automated and very expensive - especially the lenses. the mamiya is imo the best mf camera you can have for portraits. the lenses are first rate, the whole system is brilliant. and it's easy to get anything you need plus back up equipment for a song on the used market. <p>

just got finished working on a photo shooting for a multi million dollar "hairstyling product" campaign for the last three days with a big gun fashion and beauty photographer out of paris. he shot it on film and guess what camera he used.

regardless of the fact that film is a better than digital in a lot of situations, it's doomed because most people are too lazy, impatient, pressured and stupid for film to have any future. i'm not saying this because i regret films disapearence, it's just very obvious.<p>

a commercial photographer i worked with last week, who shoots almost exclusively digital with only a couple of exceptions in situations where digital backs don't preform well (dark shadowy situations), had just finished a job and told me how he only uses film as a back-up for his digital files and also just to compare things to every once in a while. a day later we were going over the post processing of a shoot and he gets a call from his assistant who tells him that he'd accidently loaded e-6 film instead of tungsten for the last job. the film they shot (as a back-up) was screwed. <p>

that kind of thing only happens with film. lab screw ups, eaten, badly scratched and or lost film, improper film, bad scans, etc. with digital all the stupid little mistakes that can happen and do happen, can be seen immediately and corrected. with film you have to be extreemely careful or you're screwed. and besides that, everyone is spoiled rotten with the immediacy of digital.

ask any photographer who has shot with film, they all have their horror stories. digital has a great safety mechanism, you (and/or your client) can see it immediately and therefor eliminate 99% of everything that can ruin a job.