richardw
-
Posts
287 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by richardw
-
-
<p>Hello Graham<br>
I'm not sure, if your grip has a contact to put the other end of the sync cord in, and therefore connect the flash with the lens. I use something like this:</p>
<p>As your flash seems to have already an adapter for another camera, for the basic flash release another adapter is not necessary. The adapter with more features (e.g. TTL) should also be able to release the flash without camera gimmicks when he closes the circuit.</p>
<p>I use the Metz 32 with the Leitz adapter and the contact shoe above, and it works well. The Metz/Hasselblad Adapter is not necessary, as the 500 c/m doesn't have TTL possibility.</p>
<p>regards<br>
Richard</p>
-
<p>Hello Paul,</p>
<p>I think the main problem here is the image circle of the Hassy lens. The circle has to cover the area of the negative, which is in the Hasselblad case 2 1/4 x 2 1/4. As you know, the "normal" lens is equivalent to the diagonal of the negative area (in 6x6 cm negative size about 80 mm)<br>
A lens with a coverage of 5x4 has to have a much larger image circle, the normal lens here is about 150 mm, as the negative and therefore diagonal measurement of the negative is much larger. So if you use a lens, calculated for medium format, you will have the image circle on your negative with the picture inside. The outer part of the negative will not be hit by the light.<br>
So there is a possibility to use lenses with larger image circles on smaller format cameras, e.g. Hasselblad lenses on 35mm equivalent with adapter, but not vice versa. You could not use a lens for a 35mm camera on your Hassy without the vignetting on the outside.<br>
For 500 quid you'll get already a good start in LF, including a lens that covers the film area.<br>
hope this helps<br>
Richard </p>
-
<p>Hello Raymond,</p>
<p>It could also happen, that for example, the sky is too much contrast in comparison to the rest of the scene. Therefore you can partially darken the sky by using the ND Filter just halfway of the picture. It's like "burning & dodging" at the moment of exposure. Then you have information on the negative that otherwise you wouldn't have for further use in the darkroom.</p>
<p>regards Richard</p>
-
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I got mine from there: <a href="http://www.monochrom.com/cc/monoc/shop/mainedit.asp?key=mn&val=HOME">http://www.monochrom.com/cc/monoc/shop/mainedit.asp?key=mn&val=HOME</a></p>
<p>regards Richard</p>
-
<p>Hello Emilio,</p>
<p>Try this: <a href="http://www.altphotos.com/Gallery.aspx?browseby=format&format=120/220mm">http://www.altphotos.com/Gallery.aspx?browseby=format&format=120/220mm</a> 6x9cm</p>
<p>regards<br>
Richard</p>
-
<p>Hello,</p>
<p>the thing on the left looks like a Manfrotto Super clamp, in the middle there is a part for a small flash and umbrella holder (you see the little hole for the umbrella). on this holder on the left you have a mount for a camera.</p>
<p>I would trust the super clamp, but I wouldn't mount the 4x5 on the flash/umbrella holder. you can dismount the whole thing, so you have 3 different large parts. In the umbrella holder there are 2 small connection pieces, you can also put out of the holder.</p>
<p>regards Richard</p>
-
<p>Hello Frank, hello Ron</p>
<p>Thank you for your answers. That was what I was thinking. btw I only do analogue printing and after using 6x6 for years, I want to take the step forward, as the prices are reasonable for analogue equipment now.</p>
<p>Regards Richard</p>
-
<p>Hello,<br>
I recently aquired a Linhof Super Technika V in 4x5 on the auction site, and I cant await the postal service.</p>
<p>As it comes now to the holders, I have learned there is the possibility to use 4x5 and 9x12 holders for it. I am based in Europe, so there should be an availability for 9x12 film. Do you have any suggestions which holders I should prefer? I tend to 4x5 as it seems to be more common internationally and therefore may be more demand for 4x5 film.</p>
<p>What is your experience in this? Or does it really matter?</p>
<p>regards Richard</p>
-
<p>Hello Patrick<br>
<br />Remember, that the given f-stop flash/camera setting just has effect on how the subject is lit by the flash. The ambient light is controlled by the shutter speed. If you think in EV values you can get the same exposure with f8 1/125 and f4 1/250.<br>
<br />So if the the flash tells you to use f4 and you set the camera on f8, you have a fill of -1. If you set in above mentioned example the shutter speed on 1/125 you get the correct exposure of the picture with fill -1.<br>
<br />If you keep the f8 and set the shutter to 1/250 the fill remains -1 but the surrounding of the picture will also be underexposed of -1. If you keep the f8 and set the shutter to 1/500 the surrounding will be underexposed 2 stops ánd the main light is the fill in the final result. The final result will also be -1 incorrect as the flash tells you to use f4 for correct exp. (but than it's not a fill flash anymore)<br>
<br />This sounds very complicated, but it isn't. Just set your camera on a tripod and shoot a roll of film. If the EV value without daylight tells you e.g. f8 at 125 then shoot one picture f8/125 without flash and one with flash set at f8 => you will get a picture which looks flat and overexposed; then keep the flash at f8 and try shutter speed at 1/250 and 1/500. Then set the flash to f4 but keep the camera at f8 (fill-1) shoot at 1/125, 1/250, 1/500. The pictures will give you a better explanation than me with my by bad english. Do the test with a digital camera and you have the results immediately and can compare them. It's quite easy once you know how this ratio works.<br>
<br />I hope this was not too theoretical - just do some test shots - it is self explanatory.<br>
<br />regards Richard</p>
-
<p>I heard that some people prefer pictures of themselves when they are inverted - that's the way they see themselves in the mirror. but that's for the final image and not the process in front of the camera. And it doesn't help if the picture isn't flattering at all. Richard</p>
-
<p>Hello,<br>
here I give some input as "european member", Mozart was born in Salzburg (not Salzberg) and he wrote an opera named "Don Giovanni", there il commendatore appears.</p>
<p>As the opera was first performed in Prag, the statue there reminds of the premiere. I have a link: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Giovanni">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Giovanni</a><br>
regards Richard</p>
-
<p>Hello Brian,<br>
for B&W, try to develop your negs yourself, you don't need a lot of "hardware" to do this and the results come out much better than in any lab, as soon as you got used to your film/developer combination.<br>
When you read the posts "which is the best film/dev combination?", there is definetly no answer, you have to find out yourself, there are just starting points. It depends what characteristic in your negatives you are looking for<br>
I just put 2 films out of the developing tank 5 minutes ago and it's always special.<br>
regards Richard</p>
-
<p>Hello Steve,<br>
as Bueh mentioned, this is just not possible because of the image circle. The other way round it is possible, and there are adapters of MF lenses to Leica, Canon, Nikon,... .</p>
<p>Why not just try aZeiss Planar 80mm on 6x6. There is no "Zeiss glow" but 3d-ness is here. Remember, that you can print a "3d" negative flat or bring it to life in the darkroom or PS.<br>
regards Richard</p><div>
</div> -
<p>Hello Paul,</p>
<p>look here:<br>
regards Richard</p>
-
<p>I had a 35mm camera on a motorcycle trip around scotland, and had it on the rear rack, had no problems at all,<br>
the only thing I did, was, because of the vibration, winding the film just before the shot, so it was tightened. I heard that the vibration could loose the film a bit.</p>
-
<p>Hello,<br />I had great results with Delta 100 @ ISO 64 and Perceptol. As Perceptol was in short supply some time ago, I switched to ID-11. I also liked the results, but at 16x20 enlargements you could definetly see a difference. I print with a condenser enlarger. BTW I use 120 film<br />Now I have some portraits undeveloped (delta 100 @ 64) and I wonder, if PMK could give me the fine grained look of Perceptol or if I should stay with ID-11, which I know and where I already did my testing.<br />I know, I should test before using a new developer, but I have read many good responses about pmk on the threads, so should I give it a try or stay with my known developer for this time and try the new one on a less important film?<br />Thank you for your responses<br />Richard</p>
-
<p>Hello,<br>
I don't find actually a scanned photo with a softar used, I have a Softar I and III, the III, I don't use very often, it's too strong, but I like the No I, as it doesn't "glow" too much.<br>
regards Richard</p>
-
<p>Hello Patrick,<br>
The display shows from 2.0 to 6.0, so it's 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and the 1/10th steps inbetween. Thats 5 stops in 1/10th steps.<br>
so if 6 is 1/1, 5 is 1/2, 4 is 1/4, 3 is 1/8 and 2 is 1/16 of max power.<br>
So I can adjust the light quite exactly to what I need. hope this helps<br>
Richard</p>
-
Hello,
just scroll down this page:
http://www.foto-mueller.at/shop/pd327600730.html?categoryId=58
There you'll see, how the beam is directed.
regards Richard
-
Hi Nicolas,
how about a large format newspaper, taped on the wall, shot from a greater distance?
thats quite a cheap "test chart" to see, if everything is sharp.
regards - Richard
-
Hello David,
did you also cock the body?, otherwise the release cannot feed into the lens, that you've already cocked. Release the body once and then cock it, so you can see the mirror when you look into the camera from the front (without lens). Then it should work.
regards
Richard
-
I started with the R system about 15 yrs ago and added a H'blad 500c about 5 years ago. After switching to MF the R6 was not in use very often. Now I use it more and more again.
It's not about the weight, this is more or less the same, it just depends on the effect, I want to have. If I want more grain I take the Leica and HP5 and if I want a very smooth negative I switch to MF and Delta 100.
The lenses of both are really great, but without tripod and mirror pre release the 120 shots are (apart from the grain) not sharper than 35mm. Its more about tonality, here 120 film is far superior. I like the bokeh of the Zeiss lenses.
It just depends, what kind of shot you want to do. I can't say one is better than the other, every film or camera has its advantages, and some ideas can be realised better with 120 film, some better with 35mm.
-
forgot to mention, on page 27 of the railway map, you have the correct information, starting left
regards - Richard
-
Hello Roberto,
in Vienna, you have three very good shops in one street, tell your friend he shall take the Underground line 2 to station Volkstheater, then change to the tramway no 49 and go 1 station (the small hill upward) to station Stiftgasse.
There on Stiftgasse 21 your friend will find the Schneider & Tischer shop www.knips.com, then 4 stations further with the tramway on station Kaiserstrasse/Westbahnstraße, if you walk back a minute you will come to www.blende7.at on the right and www.leicashop.at on the left.
Definetly worth visiting is the www.westlicht.at gallery, it is directly at the leicashop and has always nice exibitions.
here is the tramway map, you start on the right at the station Volkstheater
http://www.wienerlinien.at/media/download/2008/Linie_49_U_3224.pdf
Have a good stay here, these 3 cities are among the most beautiful in Europe
Richard
image overlap on Linhof Rollex 6 x 6 film holder
in Large Format
Posted
<p>I do have an old Linhof 6x9 magazine and I use one winding of backing paper, where I fix the actual film paper on. 2 windings of the backing paper gave too much spacing.<br>
The problem is not with the lever driven magazine super rollex, just with the knob driven rollex this happens - once you get used to this, there's no problem anymore. Backing paper is cheaper than modifying the winding mechanism.<br>
regards Richard</p>