brit

<p>Funny this is a photograph forum but lots of posts go along the lines of people trying to describe something or second guess what the something might be ;p Take a photo as best you can and show it here.</p>

<p>John <em> </em><br>

<em>"The depth of colour in a 4x5 Velvia 50 transparency is breathtaking, when compared to identical images taken with 120 Velvia 50 and 35mm Velvia 50, on a lightbox." </em><br>

Do you think maybe your viewing distance is affecting this too? I mean its the same emulsion isn't it?</p>

 

<p>An idea. If you have a roll film back is to use your std procedure, expose a roll of 120 (I guess ideally same emulsion) and send a roll off to the same lab. The difference lies in the roll film frame numbers. If your film comes back looking similarly thin but your edge markings look much more dense it looks like a failure on your part of the procedure. If everything looks equally thin looks like its the lab. But chances are you lab will have fixed any problems their side I guess, but just an idea.</p>

<p>If you have enough film of a certain type and age why not clip test? It was something I did with every roll of HIE I ever shot. Shoot a few frames then develop them and see what you have. Change your speed and try again with a few frames more. It does get tricky when dealing with roll film though but just re-spool it and take your clips from the end of the film. Film flatness isn't that important here. Depends on what size you are shooting but you could be sorted with one roll and 3 or 4 clip tests. I remember reading an Ilford film article of a 30/40 ? year old film being developed and giving good results so it can be done.</p>

<p>(I should say I clip tested for development with every roll of HIE, I had previously clip tested for exposure and development a few times for the film so didn't really need the exposure pinning down, plus I bracketed exposure +/- a stop or two depending on the shot).</p>

<p>Humm forgive any confusion in my post...I am very tired as I type this.</p>

<p>I thought I should pipe up about the Mamiya C330. I carried two of these around The Lake District UK on a Photography student field trip: one with Colour Neg one with Mono. I only shot distant views and would have been using ca. f8-f11 with shutter release cable and tripod. May have been using hyperfocal focusing. The point was there were no excuses for poor quality images (Except 1:The cameras could have been 'studented' as my Tutor described them) in respect of resolution. AS it happened the negs were soft and I got better from 35mm. I also found them heavy to work with. I have used many a Yashica124G and got great results from it. Its lens is terrific f8-f11 and its light to cappy. I have found, as have others, the wind on mech can fail leading to wasted film and a generally unpleasant time when it happens esp if someone is watching you. If you like to see in squares I would contemplate a TLR. If you don't I wouldn't personally although some people use them anyway and crop down to 645.</p>

<p>If I were getting a TLR I would avoid the Mamiya C***. I would contemplate a good 124G. I would prefer a 66 SLR.</p>

<p>Is parallax a big problem with TLRs? Well I've seen (Amateur Photographer magazine) one guy who took close ups of plants using a Mam TLR with a ratcheting column on a tripod. I don't know how many 'nearly' shots he took to get the keepers. So even close up, parallax can be overcome to an extent and with fiddling. One need only to look at David Bailey's old portraits shot on a Rollieflex to see their capabilities. Yes they physically have parallax error but they are great portraits nevertheless. I think Bailey once said because he wasn't looking towards the model they relaxed a bit too.</p>

<p>I also have a M645 and love it. I only wish the negs were bigger - using a large format camera does spoil you. I got rid of most my 35mm cameras and saved myself a Nikon EL2 that I also love to use. If I had to chose between them (35mm vs 645) I would have a hard time coming to a decision. If I had to chose 35mm/645 vs MamC*** I would not chose the MamC*** even if its neg is 6x6.</p>

<p>Sorry brain fade imminent!</p>

<p>Hummm. Here in the UK I got a V700 about Aug last year from Amazon. Just looked and still the same £400 thereabouts.</p>

<p>Actually here is the history</p>

<p><img src="http://charts.camelcamelcamel.com/uk/B000F2CAO2/amazon-new-used.png?force=1&zero=0&w=795&h=440&desired=false&legend=1&ilt=1&tp=all&fo=0" alt="" /></p>

<p>And for the V750</p>

<p><img src="http://charts.camelcamelcamel.com/uk/B000FK521W/amazon-new-used.png?force=1&zero=0&w=795&h=440&desired=false&legend=1&ilt=1&tp=all&fo=0" alt="" /></p>

<p>And to the OP, I'm not being ignorant its just I haven't gotten around to using mine much at all. Time time time!</p>

<p>Thanks Andrew. As it happens I'm going to hit the Sinar in the next couple of days and check out my film stocks.</p>

<p>Hi Oskar, If money is tight I hope you have looked at cost projections for 'consumables' ie cost of film and, if you are sending it off for development, and maybe printing, those costs too. It can work out quite expensive. It would suck if you blew the last of your money on a camera you made yourself that wasn't really getting the results you want and that you can't afford to use.</p>

<p>Hi Andrew. No, I was thinking of a scanning back at first but then because there was no easy (Yes I read your post! :) ) way to auto adjust ambient light changes during a scan, I picked up on what John Shriver said about medium format backs. It struck me I could still use my LF camera and get good IQ without extended exposure times and maybe for the same price as a top of the range 35mm SLR. I had a search (but didn't really know what I was looking for) and happened on a photographers website (pebble pebble something) who really rated the ZD - thats where the 22Mp comes from. I think I can quote him that the difference between the 22Mp ZD and Canon 1D Mark ...eeek...3? Was <em>night and day</em>. It was a Canon full sized 22MP DSLR he was comparing either Mark 3 or 4. If it was not that it was the 5D Mark 2. Though I must admit it was a ZD MF camera he was using and not just the back on ANOther body.</p>

<p>In the mean time, looks like I should get a darkroom set up and shoot some film. Haven't got the space to dev but I need somewhere to load/unload sheets.</p>

<p>The way I've always looked for leaks is get in a darkened room first.</p>

<p>Offer your bellows up to the light bulb hanging from the ceiling (no long tubes) so the bulb is inside the bellows...here its best IMO to have a fluorescent light as its cooler and won't risk softening any glues. Then work the bellows up and down, side to side and rotate around the bulb so every part has been stretched with you one side and the bulb directly the other side.</p>

<p>The bellows help to keep the spill down so the room will be dark enough to pick out any holes. Look especially at the outer corner folds.</p>

<p>Not a pretty description but I'm sure you get the idea.</p>

<p>Ok folks. Thanks for the replies.</p>

<p>Looks like a medium format back of a non-scanning nature would come as a second consideration then. I read a bit about the Mamiya ZD but still looking to get probable prices on that. I only recently started thinking along the digital large format lines because I was on the cusp of getting into strobes for small format and was checking with myself I was chosing the best way forward. If anyone has a suggestion for the lowest price digital setup I could look for my ears are open! :) The ZD is a 22 MP back so you know whereabouts I'd be happy to be. Then again I'm not sure if my lens - Sironar 150mm 5.6 - would be good enough for that small a sensor. </p>

<p>But first a little background to help you understand the question because no doubt I will not be too clear in my confusion :)</p>

<p>All my LF is done outside but in a greenhouse/glasshouse in the UK. The weather is often changeable leading to changes in light intensity and colour. With film I can just wait for the right light and *click* - the film is exposed for a few seconds at most. But how about digital? I read the cheapest backs are scanning backs and take a several minutes to complete. So here comes the question...</p>

<p>Can a scanning back do this....while it is scanning the whole frame, can it also be reading off <em>a grey card and a white card</em>* and apply the variations it sees with those during the scanning cycle to the information it is capturing at that time, so that differences in incident light intensity and colour are corrected for the final complete image?</p>

<p>I am just wondering how feasible it is to rely on a digital scanning back under changeable light intensity and colour because different parts of the scan could have been captured under different light eg a white cloud day but half stop light increase for 30 secs half way through a 6 minute scan (I realise there'd be no control for contrast).</p>

<p><em>*grey card and a white card</em>* = or any equivalent system</p>

<p>Also could I even use one to my laptop? http://uk.computers.toshiba-europe.com/innovation/jsp/SUPPORTSECTION/discontinuedProductPage.do?service=UK&toshibaShop=false&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&PRODUCT_ID=1058205</p>

<p>EDIT. btw I now have a Sinar C</p>

<p>These things can take a while to sort out. One service provider I know of took around a month IIRC to replace their server. And their service was entirely server dependant.</p>

<p>Charles I have some type 55 dated July 2007. What would you suggest I rate that at? I have never used Polaroid film or seen it used so am on the back foot to begin with.</p>

<p>Yes mine is like Peter's too.</p>

<p>ETTL? see vacant look on my face! :) I've only really used studio lights with a flashmeter and Sinar or Mamiya 642 and a few other cameras. If there's ever been a flash on camera its only ever been for triggering slaves.<br>

Old school I know but its worked..until now :)</p>

<p>Thanks Harry missed your post. That is what I was seeing and surmising, but I could not find a reason (therefore resolution) as to why that was the case. Thanks to Dan now I do.</p>

<p>Well thank you Dan. I did not have any idea there was an imperceptible pre flash as standard. I did get a hint because through the viewfinder I saw the remote strobes flash just before the shutter went up. I just argued this with a friend who would not believe what I saw, but an 'invisible' flash answers this.</p>

<p>I have tried your suggestion with the flash lock and eveything is back just like the good old simple film camera days!! </p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Ok maybe I need to explain what I meean by <em>preflash. </em></p>

<p>I mean the flash from the camera is a single flash and sync-ed to the shutter, to make the exposure.</p>

<p>I make the point to avaoid going in to this: people sometimes using redye reduction or something that causes the camera to preflash the subject which would obviously set off the remote strobes before the shutter opened.</p>

<p><em>huh ? I don't get it are you using 2 cameras ?</em><br />Tried 2 cameras to rule out a fault on the first I tried.<br /><em></em><br /><em>The pre-flash comes form the flash not the camera</em><br />Errm yes I know its the flash on the camera that flashes and not the body or lens if thats what you mean? :-\ ?<br /><em></em><br /><em>what do you mean by slaves are being triggered by body's own flash ?</em><br />The remote strobes have slaves that are triggered by the flash on the camera body.</p>

 

<p>Its been a long time since I used studio lights with film cameras. I'm trying with digtal and not getting good sync.</p>

<p>Both cameras on Manual Exp.<br>

Flash exposure set from by lightmeter reading (f16).<br>

No preflashes from camera.<br>

Slaves are being triggered by body's own flash.<br>

Tried 1st and 2nd curtain sync.<br>

Can always seem to see the flash fire through the viewfinder.</p>

<p>Here is typical role of flash im getting (dodged area is where flash is and yes this was a long shutter for flash of shutter of one second. That was 1st curtain sync.<br>

<a href="http://www.imagebam.com/image/37e32d125920437" target="_blank"><img src="http://thumbnails26.imagebam.com/12593/37e32d125920437.jpg" alt="imagebam.com" /></a></p>

<p>My next change was to 2nd shutter synch and although the marked strobe did not flash, a strobe on the other side of the light tent did. Again 1 second exposure. But when I began to turn down available light via shutter I again see no sync even at 1/60 which the 350D and 550D should do easily.<br>

<a href="http://www.imagebam.com/image/8a6ca8125920460" target="_blank"><img src="http://thumbnails35.imagebam.com/12593/8a6ca8125920460.jpg" alt="imagebam.com" /></a></p>

<p>Any idea what I'm missing to sync at a decent speed of 1/125?</p>

<p>Well you know elsewhere on here I think I read many people saying Polaroid does not really keep past its date. For that reason I've never opened nor tried (it would be my first time) to use any of the 2 boxes of Type 55 I have. Its dated July 2007. Does this mean it may still give results?</p>

<p>Nicholas. When I got my film and Polaroid back I know I DL some user guides. That was a few PC/Hard drives ago and I don't think they even DL with good names to look for (like 908549833.pdf!) but if see them I'll UL somewhere for you.</p>

<p>Thats about 700 USD for our North American friends. Sorry can't help much with the camera ideas though.</p>

<p>Fire two or more if each strobe linked to SL2. There is no theoretical max apart from physical restraints.</p>

<p>What is it that has gotten you into LF photography?</p>

<p>I continue to be amazed that people believe Photo.net is a local website.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.peak-imaging.com/">http://www.peak-imaging.com/</a></p>