mikeseb

<p>Craig's got it right. 400TMY2 is my go-to B&W film; it's the best all-around film I've ever used.</p>

<p>Whatever they've done recently to Tri-X, it is not the same film even as it was three or four years ago.</p>

<p>As I do a lot of C41 color at home in a Jobo, I've also been playing around with the two C41 B&W films, and I've developed a new respect for their capabilities. They seem best shot at around 200-250, however.</p>

<p>Cock till the line on the film lines up with the arrows; stop cocking even if mid-stroke; close the back, continue cocking until you get to frame "1".</p>

<p>Hmmm, my description sounds vaguely pornographic.</p>

<p>Great camera.</p>

<p>I used to own that very meter; and no, I doubt you've ever been able to do it before. The meter knows you really don't want it to do what you are trying to ask it to do! :)</p>

<p>It's because the shutter speed is immaterial in this situation. The shutter speed will always be set to the camera's maximum sync speed, or slower; the flash duration will be much shorter than that speed in most cases, and is thus itself the "shutter speed".</p>

<p>The meter, in flash mode, reads the intensity and duration of the flash burst (duration depending quite a bit on flash power setting) and gives an aperture that will result in a standard 18% gray exposure of the resulting illumination upon the meter's incident dome.</p>

<p>You've just demonstrated the primacy of knowledge over gear. There is NOTHING wrong with this lighting, and many things right. Congratulations.<br>

With that Vivitar bounced off the ceiling, or off an umbrella, or through an umbrella above your camera position angled downward at ~45º; and with your "natural" light bulbs or a sheet of white foamcore as a reflector below the camera position to fill the shadows, you'll have a nice "fashion" lighting setup for headshots or head-and-torso.<br>

Refinements would be an additional light on the background, or slowing your shutter speed to bring up the brightness of the background a bit.<br>

Well done. Keep reading and trying. "Light, Science, and Magic" is a book you'll hear recommended over and over, and there's a reason for that.</p>

<p>The more I try other stuff, the more I come back to plain ol' Xtol. And when I've used that up, I think I'm going to use up my unopened package of D-76. When that's gone, I'll be mixing D76H myself from scratch.<br>

There's evidently a reason D-76/ID-11 is the world's most popular developer.</p>

<p>For the Mamiya 7, you've got a 43, 50, 65, 80. 150, and something in the 200's that it seems everyone hates. I have the 50-80-150 and only occasionally hanker for something wider.<br>

If it ain't one of those, it's for the Mamiya 6.</p>

<p>Time to drag out the Profoto and Canon 5d manuals, no?</p>

<p>I've not used the Profoto 7b, but I'm wagering it won't do what you ask.</p>

<p>Both Nikon and Canon offer a version of "high speed sync" to enable you to get around the camera's maximum sync speed in limited fashion. To the best of my knowledge this is possible only with a camera and its manufacturer's compatible "speedlight" system. </p>

<p>Think I'd rather replicate the subject than the lighting. Ahem....</p>

<p>You could do this several ways. It looks like rather hard unsubtle frontal lighting with falloff. An umbrella at more than the usual distance; a bare-bulb head; maybe a dish.</p>

<p>I think I'd agree--if I had but one lens, I'd choose the 65.</p>

<p>The Mamiya 7 is the best all-around camera system I've ever owned.</p>

<p>All of the Mamiya 7 lenses are terrific, so lens "quality" shouldn't be the determining issue. It comes down to how wide you want your "wide" lens to be.</p>

<p>For 6x7 format, the "normal" lens is about a 90mm. So the 50mm lens is about equivalent to a 28mm in 35mm format, while the 65 is about the same as a 35mm.</p>

<p>I have the 50-80-150 lens set for this camera and find it about ideal. I have the external finder and I leave it on most of the time. It attaches firmly and looks unlikely to fall off. You don't absolutely need it to use the 50, but it's helpful and not really obtrusive. Again, don't make the viewfinder the reason to reject the lens.</p>

 

<p>Accept her invitation to attend as a guest, and leave your camera at home.</p>

<p>She's an advantage-taker, with which the world is already oversupplied,and she's playing your for a chump.<br>

<br />Forget her and move on.</p>

<p>Dang. Lotta trouble ain't it?</p>

<p>I like that extension arm for the Superclamp. Think I have one of those lying around somewhere.</p>

<p>I had emailed Photek about this; I heard back yesterday that the mounting ring for the illuminata can be ordered (~$42 !) with or without the mounting stud, and that the mounting rings for both the large and small Illuminata are interchangeable. They expressed surprise that my 36" didn't have the stud, but not enough surprise that any offer for a free replacement ring was forthcoming.</p>

<p>I have to say--those little 400ws lumedynes really put out some light. With the large softliter with the diffuser in place, at maybe four or five feet, I was getting f/11 at half power or less! Haven't played with it enough to know whether the light looks differently if you leave the lighthead reflector in place, or just remove it and go bare-bulb inside the Softliter.<br>

<br />I imagine the Illuminata would swallow a bit more light, though.</p>

<p>Contax. Plenty of bodies on the used market, support will continue for another six or seven years.</p>

<p>I have owned, and liked, Paul Buff's lighting gear; it's well made and a good value. <br />But I think their modifiers are just a notch above junk. I'd look at Photoflex for softboxes, as a good balance of price and quality; Chimera if you can afford them. For umbrellas, Photoflex would be a decent option; Lastolite is also good. But for versatility, consider Photek Softliters. They are well made, inexpensive, and versatile.<br /><br />I have no experience with Photoflex stands, but think of Bogen or Avenger if your budget allows.<br /><br />Buying cheap seems always to be more costly in the long run, when the stuff you bought has to be replaced with gear that actually does the job.</p>

<p>Jessica, I wouldn't bother with the Paul Buff lightstand / boom. I'm ordinarily a fan of Buff gear--their lights are well made and a good value--but I've found their grip gear and modifiers to be slightly better than junk.</p>

<p>I just sold my Buff "heavy duty" stand, casters, and boom. The main problem with it is that the plastic clamps and fittings just don't lock down very tightly and are tough to position and move except with the lightest of loads.</p>

<p>I had about seven or eight pounds of light and modifier on the end of mine, and it was having a tough time handling the load. So now I'm going to have to take the loss of selling the gear and buy the good quality gear I should have purchased to begin with--bogen/manfrotto or avenger, probably.</p>

<p>I'm hoping one day to learn finally that buying cheap is a false economy.</p>

<p>You make a good point Tom. At some point it becomes counterproductive to keep flogging away at it. I think I could adapt the 36" Illuminata to mount on a stand by drilling/tapping a 1/4"-20 hole into the outer circumference of the mounting ring for a threaded stud; or with a Super Clamp. A lot of work either way, and I'm unlikely to be taking the Illuminatas out of the house for the very reason you state--they are a hassle to disassemble and reassemble, compared to the Softliter.</p>

<p>Just for grins I assembled the Softliter and a lumedyne head in true Annie Leibovitz rube-goldberg-ian style. A C-stand; then two grip arms in sequence, ending in a third grip arm/knuckle, into which goes a 5/8" stud to which an umbrella bracket is attached; then the lumedyne head via a male-threaded stud (into the head's 1/4-20 female socket) goes into the top of the umbrella bracket with the Softliter's shaft in the bracket's umbrella hole. (I'll post a picture when I get a chance, for the amusement of the class.)</p>

<p>What does all this finagling get you? Well, the satisfaction of knowing that you just wasted 30 minutes rather than having to bother with actual picture-taking; and the ability to get the mod a little closer to the subject without a stand showing. IOW, the same thing you could do in ten seconds with a boom arm. But what's the fun of that?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>COULD WE PLEASE PUT A BULLET THROUGH THIS THREAD'S HEAD?</p>

<p>This horse is pate´ it's been beaten so thoroughly.</p>

<p>No problem Tom. Just looking at your posted image, though, I don't see that it would work unless I've misunderstood something. The speed ring you show won't mount to the Illuminata as far as I can tell, as depicted there.</p>

<p>The inner circular part with the fitting for the Lumedyne reflector socket might just fit inside the Illuminata's permanent mounting ring; trick is still how to mount the Illuminata itself to the lightstand--at least the 32" which doesn't have a mounting stud nor holes for a threaded stud.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Interestingly, I listened to a recent podcast--"Inside Digital Photo" with Scott Sheppard, I think--interview with a Pocket Wizard product manager, and he addressed these very questions.</p>

<p>The reason for two different frequencies has to do with regulatory agencies in the US (FCC) and in the EC (CIE). The US frequency was chosen because it was the emptiest stretch of FCC-available bandwidth the PW engineers could locate. They went around NYC with RF analyzer gear and "listened" for the frequency bands in which there was the least interference. I can't now recall whether it was an engineering or a regulatory reason why the same frequency couldn't be used in both US and EU--I suspect the latter.</p>

<p>He also addressed the issue of swapping modules--it's not that simple. The meters themselves have to be altered slightly--I can't recall how--to mate up with the RT-32 module appropriate for the region, so simply swapping modules won't work.</p>

<p>It is technically illegal for someone to use a US PW in Europe, but for short-term use you'd probably never be caught! Not sure about vice versa. Your PW might start someone's car or toaster or something.</p>

<p>Michael, that's a splendid image. As much as I like Xtol, I have to give the nod to D-76 for this film, based on my own results.</p>

<p>Let me add my huzzahs to the general rejoicing. This film is stunning in either D-76 or Xtol, both 1+1.<br>

It's my main B&W film for everything these days.</p>

<p>Let me add my huzzahs to the general rejoicing. This film is stunning in either D-76 or in Xtol, both 1+1.</p>

<p>It's my main B&W film for everything these days.</p>

<p>Yeah, I've heard Mr Anchell doing his curmudgeon thing with Scott Sheppard on "Inside Analog Photo" podcast; he's unhappy about a lot of things it seems! :)<br>

<br /> At least I know I'm not (completely) crazy.</p>

<p>Jim, I've used tri-x for hundreds of rolls over the years. Has something changed in the last 2-4 years, or am I losing it, because it just isn't the same film.</p>

<p>I'm finding it much harder to make it look "right" in either D76, Xtol, or HC-110. It looks flat and excessively grainy, using fresh developers and times that always worked in the past, in a temp-controlled Jobo machine.</p>

<p>And happy new year to you too, Tom (I've been away a while I know--lotsa stuff going on....)</p>

<p>I ordered the Photoflex Lumedyne speed ring linked above by Bruce, about the cheapest speedring I saw at $33; and based on another Photoflex speed ring I have, I think the PVC center disk/LD adapter will fit quite well either into the Photek permanent mounting ring or into my Dyna-lite adapter, itself mounted on the Photek ring.<br>

<br /> The remaining issue will be how to support it. For the 56" Illuminata, no problem due to its 5/8" stud. For the 36" I'll have to figure out another way to clamp to the Photek permanent ring. It has no holes or other obvious places by which to attach to a lightstand.</p>