edward_kang

Maybe I'm a bit disillusioned by the early rollei lenses. I bought my TLR based on the recommendations of people on photo.net who said that early tessars had "excellent picture quality", but when I look at prints or high quality scans out to 6" or larger, I must say the lack of quality in early rolleiflex lenses is stark (to say the least). I get better results (in terms of sharpness) with a $50.00 canon 50mm lens at the same enlargement.

I must obviously be owning a very poor example if you can make a 24x30cm print and not see the difference in quality between a shot made with the "same lens" that I have and a planar. There's no way I could honestly make that claim.

Anyways, why would a beginner like to chance their hard-earned money on a 60 year old camera? Seems like a real mistake to me, especially after my experiences with Rolleiflexes.

I recommend Shannon Watson gets herself a cheap canon eos body and a new 50mm/1.8 lens.

by the way, if you could send me some pictures that you've taken with your 75/3.5's that show off sharpness (maybe lens targets) I'd be very interested.

<a href=http://www.optosigma.com/>Optosigma</a> provides recoating

service at $20.00 per surface to be coated. Be warned that there is a

minimum order cost.

> The female radiused dovetails will be a nightmare to calculate the

> tool size for, won't they? The rotation of the tool or job to give

> the goni radius will enlarge the dovetail channel to a size greater

> than the tool.

<p>

If one were to machine the dovetails on a vertical mill by mounting

the billet on an indexer, then yes, it would have many problems.

<p>

However, I proposed machining the dovetails with a cutter parallel to

the axis of rotation on a lathe. Therefore, the dovetails are cut from

the _side_ and not the top. There will be no enlarging of the dovetail

radius.

<p>

> I don't see any advantage to swinging the lens about a fixed but

> arbitrary point in space. Why not make life simple and just move the

> pivot point to the centre of the lensboard? You could then use a\

> planetary gear to reduce the tilting motion.

<p>

Well, that's a good point. But I guess my original purpose is to make

a "scaled down" version of a sinar.

<p>

Maybe I should just use a bogen pan-tilt head mounted upside down

instead of any of this other stuff! :)

Hi there folks. I'm currently machining what I call a "MiniNar" for my personal use, which is very similar to a Sinar P2/X in terms of the way the movements are put together, but on a smaller scale with 2/3 the movements of the real camera. The material used is 6061-T6 aluminum with 60 degree dovetails cut via m42 tooling. Simple brass racks and delrin pinion gears are used, 32 pitch. The movements are "self-arresting" by use of gibs captured by end-screws. The final product will be hard anodized with NITUFF to 0.005" through NiMet Industries in South Bend.

<p>

My question is involving the tilt mechanism on the sinar. I know that Sinar uses what is commonly known as a Goniometer Stage for their tilt mechanism. Machining fairly precise linear dovetail slides for me is an "easy" affair - their manufacture is straightforward. However, I'm really at a loss as to how to manufacture a Goniometer Stage efficiently.

<p>

The method that I'm currently planning to use is bar-stock with screw-mounts drilled into them. The bar-stock will then be attached to the headstock of a lathe, and some custom made dovetail forming tools will be use to form first the radius of curvature of the top edge, then the female dovetails. The same method will then be used to cut the same radius of curvature on the top of the stage with the corresponding male dovetail cuts.

<p>

Has any of you ever made a goniometer stage? Any experienced machinists out there? Will my method work? I've worked it through with some other machinists and they seem to agree that this is the only way to do it without having strange and dangerous tooling whipping around on a mill. I'm always looking for hints and/or tips.

<p>

Also, does anyone know how the drive mechanisms work on a goniometer stage? Is it done via rack and pinion, or by lead/ball screws?

<p>

Also, another alternative for me is to use Delrin Homopolymer to ease in the creation of the goniometer stage. It's significantly easier to machine, so I wouldn't have to make lots of new custom tooling to make my cuts (6061-T6 smears like nobody's business. If anyone has an economical source for 6013 or 7075 barstock, I'd love to hear about it). The questions I have is how well does it respond to wear applications against itself?

<p>

<p>

-ed

don,

<p>

a few tips:

<p>

1) shoot in broad daylight, harsh sun.

2) choose a spot with a much more consistent color scheme (in your

photograph, you have grass, then water, then more grass, denoting a

depth of field that you're dealing with in terms of a few feet to

infinity). Choose a location that doesn't leave the viewer staring out

into infinity. You never want to distract from the model too much.

Also, pick a background color scheme with bright, saturated hues. You

want this color photograph to jump out at you.

3) use a white sheet as a diffuser for the harsh sun. put it a few

feet over your subject and hold it via two assistants.

4) use two gold reflectors to warm the subject.

5) use an on-camera flash to put some sparkle in your subject's eyes.

6) step back from the model and use your 100mm lens like a 180mm one.

<p>

and then study your model incessantly and figure out some good

positions and expressions for her to wear. I think she would carry

more impact with her mouth closed than with that "conked on head" look

:)

<p>

jon, do you know what power flash borges uses? He uses a single flash,

but I'm betting it's out of some portable ultra-WS flash pack :)

There are only two different types of rolleiflex TLR's worth having for use:

1) Automat 'T' designation with improved Tessar design.

2) Late model Planar lens designs.

Early model Planars are horrible. Early model Tessars are ok but completely disappointing compared to cheaper yashicamats.

I think it should be amended to say this:

<p>

In order to be a good photographer, one needs to have experience

working with models.

<p>

If the only model he/she can have experience with is him/herself, then

that's all he/she can do.

Personally, I don't like using negative film for portraits (especially

of fashion type stuff). Why?

<p>

1) staring at chromes on a light table captures a lot more of the

"feeling" of the lighting at the time the shot was taken than looking

at some cheese Type-R print.

<p>

2) I feel often that the small exposure latitude of slide film makes

the pictures stand out more - when I want shadows, they are black,

when I want highlights they are white - when I want skin it is the

right brightness and if I do everything right, it stays even.

<p>

Second: Copying "Sport Illustrated Swimsuit Issue" photography is

difficult if not impossible. Why? Because there are so many different

styles of photography in play. Look at these images and you'll see

what I mean:

<p>

<img

src=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/1997/swimsuit/steffi/large/03.jpg>

<p>

<img

src=http://robots.cnnsi.com/features/1997/swimsuit/malibu/large/01.jpg>

<p>

<img

src=http://a812.g.akamai.net/f/812/380/2h/sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/2001/swimsuit/gallery/shakara/shakara_2_lg.jpg>

<p>

None of these are even remotely the same in terms of the lighting

conditions and techniques. Each shot is different. So what effect do

you want, exactly? Do you have a sample that you can put up that

you're trying to copy? From one amateur to another I must urge you:

choose ONE example to copy and not a whole host of examples. Otherwise

you will fail.

But Struan, three cunningly disguised mistakes are wriggling in plain

view! :)

<p>

<p>

(but of course, in all seriousness, I would never consider a baby to

be a mistake! just injecting some crude humor! sorry, I had to do it

:)

an octabank is what separates studio strobe men from studio strobe

boys.

<p>

<img src=http://www.fjwestcott.com/new/images/box5.jpg>

<p>

Basically a gigantic 7' octagonal softbox that spreads a very even

amount of light.

I seemt to remember an older post in here or photo.net concerning

this.

<p>

titanium can be worked by fairly competent machinists. If you don't

have access to large Monarch lathes, Bridgeport Mills, with large

spingle HP, then I wouldn't recommend it.

<p>

Titanium is also expensive. I would recommend 6061-T6 aluminum for

structural work and 303 stainless for custom steel work, 316 stainless

for screws and fasteners.

<p>

There is no positive for using titanium in a view camera. Titanium is

only good as a structural material because of its high fatigue

strength limit, flexibility, and strength at a decent weight. Aluminum

exceeds titanium in this respect.

<p>

Delrin exceeds aluminum as an engineering material for some components

of a view camera.

head and shoulders above the rest - even if it was Don Knotts in that

outfit, I'd still think this was a great photograph.

<p>

Q - how much luminous power is on that strobe and how big an octabank

did you use? I've never seen big outdoor fashion flash setups, so I'm

curious...

That's a really good question. And now, until I can post a picture of

a really clear eye shot, I don't think I'll be able to say I've

answered it.

<p>

Another quest! Meheheh...

Bob,

<p>

The poster said it was in Copal 1, hence the only 210mm Sironar that

could fit the description is the 210mm Sironar, (non-N, non-S non APO,

blah blah).

<p>

Doug,

<p>

The lens you have is an ok lens, roughly 45lpmm center, 30lpmm edge.

Edge gets better when stopped down, center gets worse. OK coverage.

<p>

I personally think you've wasted your money. You already have a 150mm

lens that exceeds the quality of the Sironar. All you've done is gone

from a 35mm equivalent of a 43mm lens to a 35mm equivalent of a 60mm

lens.

<p>

I assume you paid around $200-210ish dollars for this lens.

<p>

To do portraits you have to at least get a 300mm telephoto lens. It

costs more, but as it stands right now, you haven't gained anything by

buying that new lens.

<p>

Sorry.

I have just bought a lens marked 210mm Commercial Astragon.

<p>

Questions:

<p>

1) Who made this lens?

2) What is center and edge sharpness for this particular lens?

3) What year was this lens made?

4) Is this lens achromatic?

<p>

I can't find ANY information about this lens on the web, other than some vague info about its image circle (which is not worth a whole lot to me).

<p>

Please help me, thank you.

I like this picture much better than the last one, but I still don't

think the titles really apply to the pictures. The "Waiting for God"

title didn't really make sense to me as a Christian, even

philosophically. The title "Generation Gap"...well, I can see it more,

but it's still not quite there. As a 24 year old, I've noticed the

generation gap in congregations manifests itself in much differently

that simply that of age - it's more one of attitude - activeness and

willing to serve vs. passivity and a desire for security. I just don't

see that displayed here.

<p>

I think a tendency towards symmetry works best when dealing with

extremely busy architectural shots - for example - church interiors.

The close human subject breaks down the stark horizontals and

verticals - it adds a human touch to a fairly meaningless lone

structure.

<p>

Then again, I'm being one of those retarded deconstructive

philosophers. I like the pic. I think it's great to take pictures for

the sake of serendipity. It's the sort of photography that is

expensive and utterly enjoyable. Thanks for sharing. I have to post

some of mine, sometime, darn it :)

my favorite:

<p>

http://www.fullframeimages.com/images/image05.jpg

if this ed is a runner, then maybe you should be looking at his butt

and legs instead of his upper body :) I recommend biking shorts.

<p>

-ed (lame photographer and also a part-time triathlete)

Hey guys!

The funny thing is this:

<p>

1) Eolo has never gone to commercial "photo school". He's been taking

photographs for two years by his own admission.

2) Eolo uses a 35mm Nikon shooting Ilford XP2 for B&W and various

standard color negative emulsions. His only lens is a sigma 105ex

macro.

3) He shoots his stuff in random places and doesn't have anything akin

to a real studio.

4) Most of his stuff is merely done with reflectors, hardly any flash.

<p>

That's what really impresses me about his work - it's almost entirely

based on his raw vision. He's just a really talented guy, and it's not

like he has anything better in terms of circumstance over what I have

at this moment.

<p>

It's work like his that makes me think about what I'm doing - always

telling me in the back of my head: he can do this with an nikon 35mm

SLR on film you have and one macro lens. Why aren't you doing the

same?

<a href=http://www.smallstudio.com/eolo/> Eolo Perfido </a>

<br><br>

He's five years older than me (I'm 24) and I really like his style.

Hi Tony

<p>

I'm busy taking pictures of people. Need to create something to give

to the board!

<p>

-ed

<center>

Mike, I think it's a fun shot. I have a question though. Your pictures

are consistently so dark that I can't see anything except

hightlights on my monitor, and my monitors are calibrated fairly well.

Are they artistically meant to be virtually indecipherable (i.e. the

concept that things that may not be visible to the human eye are

actually visible if they manifest themselves even minutely) or do you

work on a monitor that's calibrated "hot" (i.e. too bright?)

<br>

Enclosed is one that I've massaged with photoshop. I mean no

disrespect if it destroys your artistic vision.

<br>

<img src=http://www.nd.edu/~ekang/forum/shutup01.jpg>

</center>

No doubt there can be some interesting people shots done with

the extremely long shutter speeds and ultra tiny apertures commonly

associated with pinhole photography.

<p>

One thing interesting to do is to take a photograph of a large area

where people congregate and use the picture to see which people move

the least.

<p>

Also, with a powerful enough strobe (well, ok, maybe you need four

novatron 750 Ws units :), you can do fairly normal portrait

photography, in addition to some incredibly bizarre perspective

distortion pictures depending on how far from the lens you mount the

film.

<p>

Your creativity is the limit, I guess. Don't forget to post up your

images on here :)