erie_patsellis

<p>I use my RB lenses on a toyo 4x5, why hack up a good camera when monorails are going for a song, and you can just as easily mount an RB lens on a lensboard and get the same thing?</p>

<p>depends on the film, google "reciprocity failure"</p>

must resist the temptation...

Tin,

Somewhere along the way, I found a copy of Z131 along with all the related supporting documents, I have it on my website

at http://www.eriepatsellis.com/z131.pdf There is an entire section on bleach replenishment and regeneration, at the very

least, aerate your used bleach before reuse, I use an aquarium pump and airstone, inexpensive and works well.

Have you looked in the Z131 publication? or the relevent associated documents? I have a copy on my website at:

http://www.eriepatsellis.com/z131.pdf The instructions for mixing less than full quantities lie within. It is relatively trivial to

mix up 800ml of replenisher, add the appropriate amounts of water and starter. I mix 5l at a time for my Wing Lynch

processor, though prior to that, I mixed a liter at a time easily. The replenisher keeps for at least a few weeks when mixed,

from my experience. Even 5 week old replenisher falls within the control limits when I run a control strip.

Robert, I have a spare chrome 150 that has a horrible front cell, but the rear is immaculate.

Of course the easiest (and cheapest, usually) way is to use an older compendium with the B50 insert, works like a champ.

You can buy a 5 gal (mixed) package of Flexicolor developer for around $26 from adorama, add a $6 bottle fo starter and you have 5 gals of developer, mixed as you need it, for around $6/gal one shot, far less if you replenish.

short answer, yes. Long answer, it's more cost effective to have the Seiko rebuilt, it's a fine shutter and will likely outlast you.

Get both, there will be times when you will want one or the other.

That's a pretty big swing between 5000K and 3200K, I'd order a R1.5 and R3 Decamired filter from KEH (they're pretty cheap these days) and test shoot a roll if you can before the wedding. I find that a R3 is about right for light skinned (Norwiegen/Swedish type) persons. It also helps warm up the cool shadows that typically get too blue.

Omegas are relableled toyos, I'd get the 45F, depending on what back you use, it may or may not be stable enough. My 45F has been totally reworked to get locks working properly, etc. and still wasn't stable enough for a scan back. I use a 4x5 Sinar P for the scan back.

Nicholas,

email me and I can give you construction tips and some suggestions and lessons learned building my 20x24 camera.

 

 

erie

Interesting repsonses, am I wrong in my assessment that the only thing changed on the 150 Sonnar between the C, T*, CF, and later lenses is shutter and coatings? How about the 250 Sonnar as well?

 

(IMO, coatings are less of an issue with properly shaded lenses, having used a lot of uncoated and single coated lenses in LF, the only difference is when there is a very bright lightsource in the frame)

Mike, I use a Phase One scan back on a Sinar, you'd be surprised how affordable they are.

Bad analogy for me, I have over 1200 albums, and probably as many CDs, there is no comparison, with vinyl winning

out for overall quality in areas of imaging and tonal accuracy. (yes, I have better than most audio equipment,

and a real turntable does make a huge difference), but I really can't use LPs in the van, either.

 

As I said, to each their own, I maintain at least a years stock of film and chemistry at any given time, and

process all of it in house.

 

Here's one of my standard test subjects for moire, only film and my scan backs get it right without post work

(this is downsized from a 35mb scan back file)

 

<img src="http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/epatsellis/nikon%20300/test1.jpg" border="0" alt="test1.jpg">

Anthony,

I'm curious as to the logic, larger photosites (MF & LF backs) inherently have lower noise, have more lax lens sharpeness requirements, and have a more 3d look to them, as well as greater dynamic range. The best noise processing is not having it in the first place, in my opinion.

 

Film still can do things that digital just can't, including long exposures and the like. As I said previously, they both have their place.

Ian,

Speaking from personal (20+ years in the field), commercial work is an odd duck, are you talking catalog/product

work, or the commercial field in general (which also includes exec. protaiture, architecture, etc)?

 

I know that my clients don't care what I use, as long as they get their images within the time frame they need

them. The time requirement drives the medium used.

 

For most of the product and catalog work, I use a scan back on a Sinar, for shots involving people or some

special effects, for larger reproduction, or for longer term use, I use MF or LF film. I have a set of custom

Toyo lensboard/back that allows me full movements using RB lenses and film backs, as well as allowing one to use

LF lenses as well, so film size can be chosen based on repro ratio, from 6x7 to 8x10.

 

While many successful studios use Dslrs, the lack of movements is a big negative to me. Having been classically

trained in product work, in a real studio, not a school, I find a dslr's lack of movements too restrictive and

not allowing me to reproduce the designer or art director's vision accurately. For some client's, it's a non

issue, for others it's the main reason they use me for their campaigns.

 

There has been a predominant shift in commercial work lately, technical accuracy is becoming less and less

important to photographers, and the prevailing "fix it in post" attitude is, in my opinion, the sign of either

somebody who doesn't care to learn the skills neccesary to execute and image properly, in camera, or sheer laziness.

 

Typically the issues that often get fixed in post are easily just shot right in the first place, and if one were

to honestly analyze the time requirements, one would likely find that it's less expensive for the customer, and

allows the photographer to get more work done. My post workflow typically consists of a tiff-jpg conversion with

color profiles for emailing previews, for identification purposes to ftp files. The scan back takes 3 mins to

make an moire free, high resolution (105mb, if needed) file that is ready for use.

 

Granted, film is slightly more involved, I typically use Portra 160NC or Fuji 160S, processed and scanned in

house, the C41 process is kept in stirct control (tighter than Kodak's requirements), and with a fully color

managed workflow, color accuracy is as good as any digital source. Lots of work up front, but once your profiles

are in place, it's not a whole lot different. The end result can, in many cases, far exceed the digially captured

image, both in terms of dynamic range and resolution, as well as rendering some really intense colors better.

Yes, it costs more, both to the studio and client, but for some, it's worth it. So, in my case (and others I

know), film is the "high end" product, if you will.

 

Film is not going extinct, if it were, Kodak and Fuji wouldn't be introducing new products aimed squarely at the

pro market, would they?

If you're even moderately handy, you can get all the features (and more) of the Fuji, with the RB lenses and an

inexpensive view camera, as well as get the ability to use any view camera lens with an RB back:

<img src="http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/epatsellis/DSCF7015.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

I find the RB fine handheld, and properly maintained (lubed and adjusted every couple of years) the "fidgetyness" is a non issue. Most of the fussiness that the RB has a reputation for is lack of maintenance. They are true workhorses and will still function, unlike a Hassy that will give up the ghost without proper care, but they will get fussy when not taken care of. For example, 95% of the shutter won't release issues are resolved when a revolving back gets a good cleaning, lube and the detents work properly. Most, if not all the Hassys and RBs on ebay are in such state, and whether you choose RB or Hassy, make sure to budget for some maintenance before you start using the camera heavily.

 

I shoot both RBs and a 500EL handheld, they're designed for it, but I'm not petite, by anystretch of the imagination. As with any tool, you need some hands on time with one before you decide, perhaps if you tell us where you live, somebody may be close by and can give you some time on teh one or two cameras you've narrowed your choices down to.

The only issue I can see Dave is that you are assuming a CoC that is proportional to the negative/sensor size. In my own experience as you get bigger (8x10, or 16x20) the CoC requirement becomes somewhat relaxed, while I enlarge 8x10, I contact print 16x20 and due to the lack of enlargement, can tolerate a much larger CoC than is proportionatly calculated.

If you nix the metering prism and just get a plain prism (personal preference), and use a grip, it's quite managable, I have 3 and use them constantly instead of the Hassy. (so much so that I now only own one Hassy (a 500 EL) and one lens (chrome 150 Sonnar) and haven't missed the Hassy one bit.)

wow, it probably cost me at least that (if not more) a roll to process, but I also use a one shot processor, regenerating bleach, in my experience, it eliminates replenishment issues completely.

Benny, one of the challenges of daylight photography in color is that the shadows are cooler in color temperature, as they are lit by the blue sky more so than the sun. I use a CR 1.5 or CR3 filter to warm things up a little when shooting outdoors.

 

It could be processing issues, is this a minilab type place or a pro lab? next time you drop film off, ask then how often they run control strips. Good labs (pro) run a control strip with every batch in a dip and dunk processor, or every X hours in a roller transport machine. For my own work, I run a control every time before I start processing and every 10 rolls, just make sure everything is still where it should be.

 

erie

Can you better explain what you mean?

 

color cross over can only happen in processing.