Jump to content

sheldonnalos

Members
  • Posts

    2,069
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheldonnalos

  1. <p>You could cut holes in a dark slide to accomplish this... would just need two different darkslides for top/bottom and then flip them around to get the left/right sides.</p>
  2. <p>I'd say you've got the correct choice already with the Elinchrom Ranger. Great location and action pack. Plus they have gotten very reasonably priced on the used market lately. Elinchrom modifiers are awesome and generally light and location shooting friendly. </p> <p>I'd suggest the Ranger RX Speed AS pack. Get the "A" head if you plan on doing straight action photography, or if you want to mess around with all the electronic trickery hypersync stuff then the "S" head may be the better choice with it's longer duration flash. </p> <p>Do a google search for "Elinchrom Ranger Lithium Battery" and you'll find info on how you can swap out the battery in the Ranger for a Lithium battery and take 5lbs off the weight of the pack, plus get added capacity. Definitely recommend this upgrade as well. </p>
  3. <p>A couple comments....</p> <p>1) Shoot film because you want to shoot film. The process, the aesthetic look, because it's retro, whatever. I like film too.</p> <p>2) Don't shoot film just because you want a super detailed print. If you want that, just stitch two (or more) DSLR frames together. </p> <p>3) If you're going to get a medium format camera, skip the 645 format and go to 6x6 or 6x7 at least. 645 is still small, and is not going to really be any more detailed than a good DSLR. Plus, larger formats have their own aesthetic to them, independent of film vs digital. </p> <p> </p>
  4. <p>Shooting portraits on 8x10 opens up a couple issues that are VERY different than normal photographic rules. The main reason is that shooting a tight portrait on 8x10 approaches "macro" territory. If you frame a photo that is 8x10 inches at the plane of focus (ie. a tight headshot) that is actually going to be a 1:1 macro photo.</p> <p>First, you get a strong effect of changing field of view of the lens as you focus closer. This is referred to as focus breathing in the movie world. Essentially, the closer you focus the narrower your field of view of the lens becomes. This forces you to push the camera backwards from where you would expect it to be, and makes the lens behave as if it were a longer focal length. By the time you reach 1:1 magnification, the lens field of view is cut in half, so a 300mm lens gives a FOV that is like a 600mm lens. This is why you can shoot portraits with a normal lens on 8x10, where as you can't do so with smaller formats without perspective distortion becoming a problem. A quick and dirty rule is that your effective focal length is the same as the amount of total bellows extension.</p> <p>Secondly, don't overlook bellows compensation. If you think you are going to shoot natural light you're also going to lose light to bellows draw. If you stretch the bellows out to a 1:2 magnification you've lost a full stop, and at a tight 1:1 portrait you've lost 2 stops. It makes ambient light shooting tough, and for that reason I mainly used strobes.</p> <p>Third, don't worry about lens coverage. As soon as you start to focus closer than infinity, all the lenses have more than enough coverage.<br> <br />As far as specific lenses, if you prefer a modern copal shutter and want to keep a reasonable aperture speed that pretty much limits you to any of the 300mm or 360mm lenses from Fuji/Nikon/Rodenstock/Schneider. All of them will do very well. I used a Fuji 300mm f/5.6. Other good options would be a 12" or 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar or a Dagor.</p> <p>Here's a couple samples, both shot with a 300mm lens. The first one is with a Dagor, second one Fujinon-L 300mm f/5.6. Both lenses cost around $200.</p> <p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Scan-140319-0001_zpswyjqjrso.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Elise%208x10%20portrait%202_zpskknlec2j.jpg" alt="" /></p>
  5. <p>Gowland pocket 4x5. Not common, but a very compact and lightweight monorail. Also sold under the Calumet brand.</p>
  6. <p>I've owned really nice loupes for ground glass focusing, a 6x sylvestri tilting loupe was probably my favorite for 4x5, very nice and optically excellent. I'm currently shooting 8x10 and my "loupe" is an all plastic 8x slide viewing loupe marked "Canon" that my local photography shop gave me for free. I do have a nicer, heavier 4x Fuji loupe that has a focusing eyepiece but the cheap-o loupe is lighter and simpler, and does the job fine.</p> <p>As long as you can see the ground glass with your loupe, and can discern when the image is in or out of focus as you make adjustments, you're fine. </p>
  7. <p>You've selected one of Elinchrom's best modifiers, with good reason. Check out the smaller "baby" 27.5" deep octa and the Maxilite for other good options. And of course, on the other end of the spectrum there's the EL Octa, if you have the budget for it. All excellent.</p>
  8. <p>I'm using Rodinal to develop 8x10 in a rotary drum, single sheet at a time. Drum holds 300ml of total volume, and I develop at 1:50 so I'm using just 6ml of concentrate per sheet.</p> <p> </p>
  9. <p>It will be fine. I've shot a beat up Hasselbad 150 lens that was far worse than what you describe with no ill effects. You can actually have much worse and it will still work fine. I've done tests where you put a piece of 1/4" by 1/4" paper on the rear element of the lens, blocking the light path. You can't even tell it's there until you stop down.</p> <p>Keep shooting with it.</p>
  10. <p>I had a RZ67 II before, and the prior owner had disassembled the focus screen/fresnel lens and put them back together in the camera backwards. The net result was the camera backfocusing slightly. I didn't notice it until I started doing some wide open fast aperture portrait shooting with the 110 f/2.8 and 150 f/3.5.</p> <p>That's one possibility, although your shot of the mushroom might suggest things are okay with the focus screen position. Might try a critical focus test wide open with the 127 to see if the focus screen and film plane are properly aligned. If they are, then I'd just say don't worry about the infinity issue with the 65, I don't think it will affect photos in normal use. </p>
  11. <p>The best portrait lens is good light and good communication with the subject. VASTLY more important than the lens. </p> <p>Of the two lenses you listed, I like the 85 better. Slightly more flexible focal length that can allow you to work in a bit more environment if you desire, slightly faster aperture is better for lower light/shutter speed or shallower DOF if you want. I doubt you could pick the two apart in terms of sharpness or "look". Macro lenses will work fine for portraiture too, but I'd choose the 85 for the faster focusing speed and faster aperture. </p>
  12. <p>Handheld or tripod? Folding camera or a one piece fixed unit? How wide of a focal length do you want? Wider will be physically more compact.</p>
  13. <p>+1 to John's comment. Buy a flatbed Epson scanner, digitize all your negatives, then sell the scanner. Probably will cost you only $50 total and will give much better results.</p>
  14. <p>No big deal. It's just translucent plastic.</p>
  15. <p>Those aren't even "friendly" prices. Most people can't give away a monorail 4x5 camera. The camera and lens boards are worth $100-150, the lens is worth maybe $50.<br> <br />Ignore what people are "asking" for a camera on ebay, and look at completed sales. There are a bunch of Cambo monorails that have sold for $100 or so. </p>
  16. <p>To be honest, I would just dump a couple bare heads full power into the far wall for bounce and see what you get. You might be surprised at how well it will illuminate the group and get rid of any issues with falloff or ugly shadows. Even dark walls will bounce a lot of light and as long as they are relatively neutral in color, just shoot one image with a gray card to help with white balance. You should easily be able to get f/8 if you run the ISO up to 400 or 800.</p>
  17. <p>Thanks Dave! Check out the used gear for sale section at the Large Format Photography forum, there's lots of activity there as well as helpful advice. I think you have to be a member for 30 days with a certain number of posts to see the For Sale section.</p>
  18. <p>As someone who is currently shooting 8x10 portraits of my kids, I say "Go for it!". Shoot 8x10 film, it's a blast and not expensive like you fear. I'm into it for well under $1k for the whole kit and I spend only about $3 per shot.</p> <p>Get a cheap old wood field camera and not some crazy expensive thing. I have a Kodak 2D that was only around $450. I only have 3 holders and it's more than enough. You only need one lens, I do everything with a 300mm. Yes, you can do tight headshots with it without distorted perspective. With big film like 8x10 portraits are "macro" in that they are close to 1:1 magnification which changes the field of view of your lens significantly (makes it more narrow). Most people don't realize this until they start shooting 8x10.... so no you don't need a 600mm lens for portraits. The closer you focus, the "longer" your lens gets.<br> <br />I use primarily a Fuji 300mm f/5.6 lens that I got for $200. Film is Arista Ultra EDU 100, costs under $3/sheet if you buy from Freestyle photo. I scan on an Epson 4990 flatbed scanner, works great. Don't have a darkroom, just use a Beseler 8x10 print drum and rotary base for developing, using Rodinal developer and doing one sheet at a time. I like shallow depth of field, so I don't mind the challenge of focusing. I use strobes a lot with it, but you wouldn't have to if you don't have them.</p> <p>It's a great challenge, I love taking my kids out on "photo shoots" as a way to spend time together. Here's some example pics, all shot with a 300mm lens unless otherwise noted...</p> <p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Scan-140401-0001_zps5624dfe9.jpg" alt="" width="803" height="1000" /></p> <p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Scan-140319-0001_zps10fe9531.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>240mm lens<br> <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/ElisePortrait_zpsacee4343.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="751" /></p> <p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Scan-140529-0001_zpsab79d76a.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/AshlynWheatField_zpsc797643f.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/KidsPortrait8x10_zps0fa34a21.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Ashlyn%20Whipple%20Creek_zpsfim8kg57.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="799" /></p> <p> </p>
  19. <p>I've got both. For what you describe I'd take the Quadra as the preferred choice. Easier on location up on a boom or light stand, more power, better ability to go low power when needed, the only advantage to the BXRi 250 would be if you need fast recycle times and are shooting primarily indoors. </p> <p>The Quadra is getting less expensive too, especially on the used market. Here's one for sale from a reputable selller...<br> http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99297.0</p> <p>Also, give serious consideration to the 27.5" Deep Octa instead of the 39". It's similar in shape/design, just smaller. It's more favorable for location work or on a boom. Combine an assistant with painters pole from your local home center store plus one of these adapters and you've got a killer combination. </p> <p>http://www.kaceyenterprises.com/?page_id=447</p> <p>I've owned both the 39" and 27.5" Deep Octa and settled on the 27.5" Deep Octa as my preferred location modifier. </p>
  20. <p>I've owned all the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 versions as well as previously owning the Canon 200 f/1.8L (a close relative of the 200 f/2). Comparing a 200 f/2 to the current 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II I would suggest you will see the following differences. </p> <ul> <li>Relatively similar autofocus performance, in that they are both excellent and very fast/accurate. </li> </ul> <ul> <li>Similar sharpness. From a practical standpoint both are *very* sharp even wide open.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Slightly more background blur (shallower depth of field), in terms of quantity at f/2 vs f/2.8. Not a massive difference. </li> </ul> <ul> <li>Improved "quality" of background blur with the 200 f/2, slightly smoother and less busy looking. </li> </ul> <ul> <li>A bit more "magic" in the resulting photo because of the combination of the above. Yes, it will be better but not night and day different. If you put a f/2 shot next to an f/2.8 shot from the 70-200 both will still look good with a subtle advantage to the 200 f/2. </li> </ul> <ul> <li>A LOT more weight and bulk. I found the 200 f/1.8 to be something I had to plan to use, not just something I would throw in the bag to take with me. It's a specialized lens given its size/weight and fixed focal length. </li> </ul> <p>Yes, the 200 f/2 is an amazing lens but don't underestimate the size/weight/cost penalty or over estimate the difference between the photos from it and the already very good 70-200 f/2.8 II. I personally settled on the 70-200 II as the more flexible/reasonable option for my shooting. </p>
  21. <p>If you're in the Seattle area, it's a short 3 hour drive to get down to Portland, Oregon. That's really not any farther than driving to the Olympic peninsula. The Columbia River gorge is full of scenic waterfalls and short hikes, and is very lush and green this time of year. Between Seattle and Portland you have the options of seeing Mt Rainier and Mt St Helens (probably too early for wildflowers, but you might get some).</p> <p>For coastal shooting, the really beautiful stuff in WA is out on the Olympic peninsula (Ruby Beach, Second Beach, Shi Shi) and is in the middle of nowhere a long drive away. You might actually be better served by driving south to the Oregon coast... it's almost the same amount of road time and is a much more tourist friendly area with more scenic stuff easily accessible. With a week in the Pacific NW I'd suggest spending a day or two in Seattle (Pike's Market, Kerry Park on Queen Anne Hill for the cityscape view), then heading down to Portland catching Mt St Helens visitor center along the way. Spend a day or two in the Columbia River Gorge hiking (Multnomah Falls, Womens Forum viewpoint, Crown Point, Waterfall historic Highway, Rowena point/Hood River if you want to go farther east, be sure to catch Edgefield in Troutdale for a drink and dinner after a long day shooting). Then head to the Oregon coast for another day or two... (Ecolca state park, Cannon Beach, Pacific City/Cape Kiwanda). <br> <br /> Enjoy your trip! </p>
  22. <p>I run a 27" 10 bit display as my main screen, a 24" secondary display (not 10 bit) and put my photoshop menus and second lightroom Loupe view screen (when needed) on the 24". Both are calibrated.</p>
  23. <p>Contact this guy... he seems to buy/sell a lot of medium format digital stuff and is located in Poland.</p> <p>http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=profile;u=52785</p>
  24. <p>My personal experience with strobes outdoors is that you've got two fundamental options.</p> <p>First option is having an assistant who can hold the flash/modifier for you while you shoot - and if you've got an assistant then you've got a second person who can carry gear so the size/weight of the pack isn't that big of a deal.</p> <p>Second option is having a modifier on a lightstand and shooting by yourself. If you're using a modifier on a lightstand then you need a stand that's sturdy enough not to blow over or fall over on location. The size/weight of the stand plus modifier is a big part of what you are carrying on location (plus camera/lenses/triggers/light stand adapters, and potentially tripod) so the pack/head is only a smaller portion of what you need to bring. It's nice to have a pack/head that fits into the same bag as your camera, but it's not really that big of a deal in terms of weight when you consider everything you're bringing. Ten pounds difference really isn't that much in a backpack. </p> <p>I've got speedlights, a mid sized Quadra pack, and a full size Ranger pack. If I'm going to do a shoot by myself using strobes then the time/effort/extra equipment in setting up the shot (regardless of what light I use) essentially dwarfs the weight difference in strobe that I carry to the location. If I had to consolidate down to just one of those strobe systems, I would definitely keep the larger Ranger. </p> <p>Yes, you can do it very simply with a speedlight, lightweight stand and small modifier in lower ambient light conditions with no wind. But if you want the flexibility to shoot in a wider range of conditions with a larger modifier the whole game changes, and at that point the weight of the pack really isn't the biggest factor. </p>
×
×
  • Create New...