kang_kim

It's a little more complicated.. as usual..

Here is one example. They are a feature story pictures done for NY magazine recently by

Mitchell Feinberg who is one of most respected/ high-paid commercial still life photographer

in town.

The pictures were done through 8 by 10 chromes without post-retouching.

Check out the jewelry with dessert pictures...

www.apostrophe.net_look for Mitchell Feinberg_go to Jewelry section....

seagate 500G 7200.10

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148135

"But I've heard opinions saying that you can do so much with digital and photoshop, that

you

really don't need a view camera anymore. Is this true?"

If you want to be a really good pro, it's not true. But you don't need to ague with the

opinions neither... It'll be more clear as you get more experience yourself.

Last 10 years, I was in the debates, and I'm doing as a pro in still life(products...) in NY for

about 4 years. For now, here, you need to(want to) do everything: films, digital, view

cameara, medium format, photoshop, and more....

Have a open mind and don't decide just yet : )

Cheers!

Hi,

My suggestion is this; try same subject/light with different F stops like f22, f32, f45, and

f64. and compare yourself the differences. Please let us know the differences! I think this

is th ebest way to solve the problems.. getting good advices and then try/experiment for

yourself...And then let others know your opinions...

For my case, I mostly use strobe light and shoot still-life subjets. and my usual f-stop is

aroud f32-45 with schneider 210 L/180 sironar-s/180 macro schneider. That's the best

compromise I can have for still -life

subjects, I think. For digital (phase-one H25/4X5 camera) with rodenstock digitar 90: F

22.5 from a friend's recommendation and For digital macro : F16(?) from my rough

research and some experience. I totally agree with Pico's opinion and also other's.

Hi,

It's been for a while. After looking the answers again, I want to thank you all for the

sincere answers again. I bought the schneider 210 L and used a half year now. I like it very

much. Comparing with my 180 sironar s, I don't find much difference. Even the color

seems to be similar. In fact, I like both lenses. Maybe, now I'm less anal... even though one

of my job requirement is to provide best possible quality work(technically also) to clients

though..

Thanks

Hi,

Even though I don't have the exact answer for your question, I feel that your question is a

reasonable curiosity(sorry for my bad english). My short answer is; There should be some

differences between lenses, but not serious. And in photography, nothing is 100 % perfect

or predictable, which might be a very good thing for some reason. Sorry for my ambiguous

answers. Here are some facts from my experiences. Between the color-labs, there is about

a third stop difference in exposure and there is about a quater stop difference between

same iso rated films(different brands). I think you should use your light meter as a quide

for about 90% and you need to back it up with your experiences; such as your lenses,

films, color-labs, weathers, your moods, and so on. There is a lot of ambiguousness in

photography. And I think that is not a bad thing.

Hi,

Thank you for your answers. Rowland, I would love to have the references regarding

books. I'm very curious and hate to give half-guessed explaination to clients. Dan, I agree

with you regarding E100G handling of subtle colors. I just compared diffrent films while

shooting flesh tone cosmetics. I think this is what the beauty photographers actually shoot

rather than real face. RDPIII is unusually redish. Astia and E100G are much closer to the

actual colors. The astia is slightly more closer since it represents well the suble pink shade

in the fresh tone cosmetics. Without the pink tone, E100G seems to be a little yellowish

even though it's not yellow in terms of overall color temperature, compared with the

product. I also tested medium/dark brown cosmetic powders. In this case, E100G is a little

more closer to the product than Astia. The brown of Astia is a little red/magenta side. I

guess nothing is 100% perfect in photography like other things in life. Thanks again.

hi,

I'm doing still life photography with 4*5 chromes and have problems with green colors.

Years ago, through a rough test with EPR, EPN, EPP, and RDPIII, I decided to go with the

RDPIII. One of the reasons was the better rendition of green color(in this case, green color

of color-checker). But, for the last couple years with RDPIII, I still have problems with

greens especially the green dyes of cometics(ex-subtle green colors of a shampoo or

soap). Also when I shoot blue/green fabrics or color-gelled background, more than 50%

green shade disappear. Can I get any advices regarding this issue? Either the reason why

it's so difficult to represent green in slide films or the other better choices of film? I tried

Velvia100F and Vevia50. Sometimes Vevia100F enhance the green dye in cosmetics(it

represent about 70% of green with green soap while RDPIII and Velvia50 are less than

10 %), but not always(It represents green very weak with green colored perfumes). With

Vevia 50, the subtle green dye of cosmetics dosn't respond at all(I tested one time with

green soaps). I didn't test E100G and Astia100F yet. Are they better with greens? Are there

different kinds of green dyes which react differently with slide film? Sorry, I know this is a

more color-science kind of question. Thank you in advance.

hi, update from the last posting-I need to correct previous wrong information. I tested two

lenses(180 sironar-s and 210 apo-symmar L) with color-checker. And the colors looks

very similar. I was wrong and I feel sorry for that.

Hi,

Since you are shooting chromes/provia 100f, there are some color differences between

Rodenstock and Schneider lenses. Among the NYC pro color labs, about 4800K/4900K is

right neutral color temperature for provia 100F with Rodenstock lens(180 Sironar-S/210

macro-sironar). From my experience, 210 apo-symmar needs about 4600K for provia

100F. This means that schneider is about 250K degree colder than Rodenstock, which is a

little bit colder than 82 blue filter. I'm testing 210 apo-aymmar L color temperature right

now. It seems to be similar with apo-symmar or slightly colder. Let me know if you need

the results. I'll know it in a couple of days.

This difference in color dosn't means that you need to use only one brand of lenses. In my

case, I want to explore different lenses, but it's always helpful to know the color

differences for the chromes.

I know 210 lens a little. If you are shooting objects, 210 is usually the best lens. I know

schneider apo-symmar and Rodenstock sironar-s. It depends on the photographer's

personality. The schneider is very masculine, and rodenstock is very gentle to me. I'm

shooting chromes. It might be not so obvious in negatives. Make sure to have lens-test

with helps from your friends(if you have a professional friend) after getting lens just in

case.

Hi,

Thanks for your answers regarding 210 lens. I have another qustion regarding macro lens.

A couple weeks ago, I shoot colorful jewelries at 1:1 ratio with the old rodenstock macro

sironar 210, and schneider macro symmar 180 HM, and 210 apo-symmar to see the

differences. The two macro seems to be a little(but important enough) sharper and clearer

than the normal lens. I noticed the old rodenstock lens is less saturated in color and less

contrasty compared with the schneider macro. Is this a correct observation? Is the new 180

apo-macro sironar different from the old macro sironar in contast and color saturation? If

you guys have some experiences, let me know. I prefer 180 rodenstock than 180

schneider because of the greater coverage. I prefer 210 focal lengh because of the tighter

compression when shooting a composition macro picture. I want to know if the new 180

apo-macro sironar is better in color saturation and contrast than the old macro-sironar.

Also, the used 210 macro-sironar is 1070$ from my local dealer. Is this a fair deal?

Thanks.

Hi,

I've used a rented 210 apo-symmar for a while. And I have 180 sironar s. My feeling about

these two lenses are like this; The 210 seems to be a bit sharper, maybe a little contrasty.

The shadow area of 210 seems to be bluer even though other areas are normal. The 210

schneider seems to be slightly sharper and/or contrasty and masculyn. The rodenstock

seems to be more gentle and color-correct in shadow area.

hi,

Even though I'm not an expert, I have some info/experiences. The high end digital backs I

know are phase-one H-25 and sinar-back system. I have some experience with H-25. I

heared you need about 40,000$ budget for the system and a very good computer system.

Now it is commonly used in the editorial/catalog area for still-life and also beauty photo

area. Not so many advertizing area though. Compared with the image shot 4*5 chrome/

scanned through drum scanning/printed 8*10 inches/full page through very good printing

process, the digital image is good enough in many cases, even though many people think

the film proceed image is better and has "more depth." Good luck

Thanks for your answers. I also checked out the similar discussions in the old forum.

The infos are like this; traditionally schneider has a little better reputation than rodenstock

in 210 lens area, schneider is a liitle colder in color(which is not my concern), sironar-s

might be a little more contrasty. In my case, I need a sharper lens in a natural way. In my

recent test with sironar-s and sirona-n, I noticed quite a bit of sharpness/color saturation

differences.

I'll compare sironar-s and symmar-l and post the result soon.

Regarding the macro-lens, for now I need a normal lens and I usually rent the macro when

needed.

Thank you

I'm looking for a good 210 lens for still-life. Which one is better? 210 Apo-Symmar "L" or

210 sironar-S. Is there someone who actually tested these lenses?