rico_tudor

<p>Diffused lighting of flat art is the safe route where any hint of the viewing environment is suppressed. As noted already, it also flattens the desirable qualities of color, contrast, and surface texture. Ironically, some galleries and museums have a quite hard and directional lighting scheme for their paintings.</p>

<p>Recently, I've been shooting tiles by a local ceramics artist. The surface has contours and incredibly detailed textures, all with a high glaze. The challenge is mapping these properties into a 2-D photo. One light is enough, but it must be sized and positioned carefully: far enough away to give depth-of-light, large enough to generate speculars, high enough to avoid heavy shadows. No polarization is needed. Each art piece responds differently to lighting, and the photographer must take an artistic role. I'm using the Profoto ProBox (a 1' rigid box) @ 3' and a 45-deg down angle. Fill, which is essential, is 3'x4' foamcore at close range on the other side of the light. Flash is quick and easy, solves camera vibration, and is full spectrum.</p>

<p> Four tiles on velvet:<br>

<img src="http://patternassociates.com/rico/nikon/misc/tiles.jpg" alt="" width="1200" height="1178" /></p>

<p>Oblique view:<br>

<img src="http://patternassociates.com/rico/contax/misc/tile2.jpg" alt="" width="1200" height="1018" /></p>

<p>Hasselblads with 70mm (perforated) film were the MF camera of choice for NASA, so I imagine they were generally reliable. :-) Any terrestrial Hassy could use a 100' film load with the A70 back, although a motorized body would be the most convenient. A past thread here on PN: http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00YHgR</p>

<p>The D1 has fan cooling. It also has a thermal shutdown feature, although that should never be necessary. A halogen bulb is indeed a serious heat source at higher wattage. I use Profoto packs, and my heads are fit with 65W, 250W, 300W and 500W halogens. If the heads are confined by certain accessories like the snoot, temperatures rise and so does cooling level (louder fan noise). Other attachments like the ProBox cannot be used with 500W modelling—not surprising since 500W modelling and the Magnum dish can cook your dinner! In general, dish reflectors (no socks) are completely fine, as are softboxes with top ventilation, when the modelling light is enabled indefinitely at full power.</p>

I need the full range of my main studio pack. Head shots at ISO 100, f/5.6 and a Profoto Magnum (13" dish) for key requires the minimum 9J. Generating ambient fill in my (white) shooting space with a bare bulb requires the full 1200J, and also for certain inefficient modifiers like the ProBox (a small rigid box) and tabletop apertures.

<p>Glass dome is 7cm, and body is 10cm.</p>

jonathan,

 

I back Michael's recommendation for Profoto Acute: it's a deep product line, and 50% the price of the Pro series. The AcuteB is the battery generator for the line, and so easy to transport. As mentioned, the Magnum reflector doubles effective output. Number of full discharges is spec'ed at 160, after which you can swap batteries in about 3sec. To correct Michael, the AcuteB can operate any Acute head, and also the standalone fixtures (fresnels, striplights, etc). This is important if you want 1200J in the field because you can gang two packs behind the Acute Twin head. What you do lose in this configuration is the modelling light, but the 65 watts provided by the AcuteB is barely enough to constrict your subject's pupils, and seriously drains the battery. For serious studio use, the A/C Acute2 and D4 are better for extended sessions with their fan cooling and modelling lights (up to 500W). Of course, the modifiers are shareable between all Profoto heads.

<p align=center>

<img src=http://patternassociates.com/rico/d30/misc/penny3.jpg>

</p>

There appears to be a color cast coming off the backdrop, making automatic color balance impossible. The backdrop has overly strong illumination that creates glare off the upper surfaces: beyond dialing down the background light, you might consider a polarizing filter. My results with manual color balancing, plus "curves" adjustment:

<p align=center>

<img src=http://patternassociates.com/rico/photo/misc/table1.jpg>

</p>

Trevor, the Contax T has true RF operation, including coincident patch in the VF. Focus action is manual by way of a ring on the lens, and you can focus by scale (although DOF scale has hyperfocal marking only). Also manual is aperture setting (on lens), film transport, and lens deployment (T is a folder!). The only auto function is exposure (full-time Av AE, flash). As a T2 user, you are already aware of the excellent Sonnar. The T3 Sonnar is better if one's taste runs to ultra-modern. More T/T2/T3 info can be found in a Pnet search.

 

P.S. Great color in your pics.

On my M4, the 35 and 50 framelines lack corners. The 90 lacks corners <i>and</i> the sides are composed of three dashes - not the best design for comfortable composition. I can't answer OP's question, but I solved the problem with SGVOO: fully-formed brightline, 1.0x magnification, undimmed view, parallax correction.

Nikon Coolpix 900, Canon D30, 1Ds. The depreciation is breathtaking.

There are four versions of the pre-ASPH 'cron 35, with variations in ergonomics and optical formulae. The celebrated v.4 is shortest in length and has a nice aperture ring. In my experience, the v.3 produces an image of equal quality, and I prefer its DOF scale. Received wisdom says the v.1 (costly, chrome, 8 elements) has the old-world charm.

<p>

<table width=400 border=2 cellspacing=1 cellpadding=10>

<caption><i>Lens Length from Mounting Flange</i></caption>

<thead>

<tr><th align=right>Length<br>(mm)<th>Lens

<tbody>

<tr><td align=right>34.5<td>Leica Summicron-M 35 ASPH

<tr><td align=right>26.0<td>Leica Summicron-M 35 v.4

<tr><td align=right>29.0<td>Leica Summicron-M 35 v.3

<tr><td align=right>28.5<td>Leica Summaron-M 35/2.8

<tr><td align=right>42.0<td>Canon EF 35/2

</table>

 

<p>

I don't yet own the ASPH: length was derived from the Leica engineering diagram. Other measures were taken from my copies (focus set at infinity). The Canon is pretty small for a retrofocus design, plus AF. The v.3 begins to encroach into the M4 brightlines.

By frequency of use, my main camera is the Contax T3. Second place is either Aria or M4. If I carry all three, the burden is still less than the Canon 1Ds!

Visited family last weekend in sunny SoCal. Daytime: Gold 100, M4, Summaron 35/2.8, Sekonic 308. Evening: Superia 800, Aria (Contax SLR), flash, CZ 28, 50, 100 (as usual, never used). My aunt was an M3 shooter in the 50's, and was tickled pink to see engraved metal again.

Not a 100% match for your needs, but I recommend the Contax T3. You get true shirt-pocket size and weight, an ultra-sharp Zeiss Sonnar 35/2.8, and electronic leaf shutter. Given its underlying P&S nature, you lose full manual control, although focus and exposure can be set with subterfuge and some excruciating menu navigation. Price used is $4-500.

 

I almost always pair the T3 with my M, mainly for the flash.

From many posted images, I know the 'Lux ASPH has an optical character that would serve me well. Unfortunately, the problem is size and weight (black chrome included). My old Summaron and 'Crons have perfect balance on an M4, and don't blot out the VF. What did the Rolling Stones say...?

Two more YES votes from Chicago.

Contax T is not a P&S but, rather, a manual-focus RF with mandatory aperture-priory AE. Think of the mass-market '70s RF cameras like the Canonet. The leaf shutter has electronic timing, but no lag. By no lag, I mean less than my threshold of detection - call it under 10ms. On the street, you are invisible with this camera. I still like the M for total exposure control, and the construction :-)

Earlier discussions like this one perked my interest in Barnack. My current gear is '70s M and, rather than explore the ASPH stuff, I'm going back in time. Acquired the first piece last month (LTM Summaron 35/2.8), and am mulling a body. The purist choice sounds like pre-war, with the easy (and expensive) way out being a IIIg. I really like having slow speeds and a self-timer, so the IIIg or qualifying IIIf bodies are my current contenders - barring this crazy pre-war notion.

 

And yes, Harry's lectures about VF-on-a-string is sinking into my brain. What next, frame the scene with my hand? :-)

<center>

<img src=http://patternassociates.com/rico/d30/misc/threepines.jpg>

<p>

Leica 1Ds, Leitz 21 Super Distagon, Velvia 50 CF

</center>

Matt, your portrait can be worked in different ways. Using a PS clone called the Gimp under Linux, I applied +20 Red, -5 Green, -10 Saturation, a custom Curve, and a smidgen of sharpening to produce the following:<p align=center><img src=http://patternassociates.com/rico/photo/misc/alofs.jpg></p>

My M4 was serviced 2 years ago by DAG. Wax seal at 12 o'clock:

<p align=center>

<img src=http://www.patternassociates.com/rico/photo/misc/dag92.jpg>

</p>

Thanks, feli, for the <i>great</i> write-up!

Check out the <a href=http://birdforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=112>Binocular section of BirdForum.net</a>. You'll find plenty of reviews, comments, and detailed optical testing. I recently acquired a new pair and, while the Leica Ultravid was a finalist, the winner for me was the Zeiss 7x42 FL. In the end, it's a matter of personal trade-offs.

Oddly enough, the ceramic pressure plate was reintroduced by Kyocera in the Contax RTS III of 1990. Rather than pair it with a DS advance lever, they chose instead a 5 FPS motor drive. Wonder where the static went. :-)