enigmaphotography

Errrr, what color? I mean, personally, I have very, very little experience shooting pinkish caucasian colors, no experience with darker African complexions, and a LOT of experience with Asan skin tones. I don't know of any books, but my technique might apply, I basically meter (using a Minolta spotmeter) off of the brightest cheek, and occasionally meter off of a gray card. The idea of overexposing is fine, if you want to make everyone look white (errr, in black and white). I prefer to try and capture the natural skin tones, meaning I hope that my caucasian portraits in B&W are lighter than my portraits of Asians.

 

I recall reading somewhere that African skin tones photograph particularly well in black and white against a light or medium gray background...maybe it was in Mapplethorpe's biography (last book I read, and the fact I remember this means it was probably in that book).

 

Hope this helps. mostly me just rumaging around my faulty memory, lol...

This was beaten to death for decades, and probably hasn't been seriously discussed in 30+ years. The consensus was (and is) that yes, photography is an art.

 

I love Joyce, but on this point he had a serious case of cranial rectal inversion ;-).

Heh, I was about to post a sort of similar question. One of the things that I'm noticing is that people like more and more fantasy, and less and less reality in the photos they view. A good example is my own portfolio, the highly processed digital stuff is consistently rated higher than a simple "Light it, shoot it, and print it" medium format film shot, where I do no post processing other than dodge and burn.

 

For what I shoot? I'm changing, radically right now. I think its middle age setting in and deciding to be truer to my own vision, critics be damned. I'm less and less interested in perfection in my subjects, but dammit, I want a perfect print :-).

 

I'm spending far, far more time in the darkroom exploring different aspects of printing, and recycling some of the things I discover back into the studio...but for my personal work, I probably spend 10 hours in the darkroom printing for every hour I spend in the studio shooting. That's a change, I used to shoot, then be satisfied with an "Okay, it'll do" print. I print the same number of proofs, and am far more merciless is weeding out stuff where I didn't capture what I intended.

 

I've come full circle, from a fully manual 35mm SLR without even a built in light meter...through automated 35mm SLR....to DSLR....and am back to the manual process of metering, then shooting...now with medium format, and am finally getting what I am looking for in the vast majority of shutter releases (don't get me wrong, I still shoot 35mm, and DSLR....a lot...but am applying how I shoot MF to that, and actually shooting less, but ending up with more shots I'm happy with).

Mmmmm....great advice, I'd forgotten to suggest a good neutral density filter. I actually take a few fresh garbage bags on windy days to change lenses, but I'm neurotic about getting the fine sands here on the sensor. Reflectors...yeppa.

 

And I tend to ONLY shoot at the beach starting at 90 minutes before sunset, I'm on the west coast of an island, love putting the model so she is blocking the sun with a big reflector in front to actually light her body. However, with digital, the color of the light isn't so critical (post processing can do a lot), but the shadows might be.

 

If its a bright day, you may have to put sunglasses on her to avoid the evil squinties....or, have her close her eyes until you say "NOW!" and then quick shoot before she squints....and take 3-5 shots just to make sure you got it, sometimes you just can't tell on the D70 LCD :-).

 

Or.

 

<preparing to duck and cover>

 

Just take a nice 645 or 6x6MF body with you :-p <running like hell> he he he

Holey cow, great link, Tim....of course, for someone who has a lab who can PRINT a 40" x 60" color print, 4x5 IS killer...but for those of us who are limited by national conspiracy to 10"x15"....ermmm....we STILL prefer MF to digital, he he he....but I kid you not, if I could find film, I'd shoot 8" x 10" for most of my studio stuff, I really envy you guys in the developed world :-). Hell, I drive 2 hours just to buy 120 FP4 and HP5, and would have to fly 4 hours to get LF film.

 

An aside, I did get confirmation from Pentax that the digital version of the 645 IS in the works, and will be priced around US$10,000.

 

Crop factor would be a big issue for me, as it is with the 35mm SLR style digital (I have a D70, and use it a lot...but never print larger than 8x12 or 8x14, which is the largest digital print you can get here)...so in MY case, anything over 8MP is overkill, as I can't even GET decent color printing done optically...

Tri-X, far more latitude for exposure errors, thereby far more printable pictures early on.

As one who has recently made the jump to medium format, I can actually (hopefully) offer some advice. I *definitely* still shoot 35mm and DSLR, the same rule of shutter speed holds on MF (he says after a giant "DOH!!!" at his third roll of FP4 through the thing)(what was I thinking???). Hence, for low-light handheld shots, 35mm is still going to get better results than MF.

 

Other observation: Mirror slap on a camera with a mirror 1/2 the size of Texas is a bitch, but cast iron tripods with 3/4" lead plating on the head and 13 tonne ballasts will...errr....my point is that you aren't going to want to CARRY that tripod very far, so...yeah...35mm still DEFINITELY has a place (even in my studio, especially when I want huge grain).

 

I think whether or not you sell a 35mm body is up to you, I baby my stuff, and can schedule shooting around a particular body that's in for service (as in, do only shoots requiring film when I need to have my CCD cleaned, or vicey versey on having the film bodies cleaned and services)...

Well, I had a response here, but thanks to your grammer police not liking two question marks, its gone. Good luck :-).

 

Word of advice, even for those of us with degrees in writing, we admit, acknowledge, AND use various techniques in online communication that are quite different from what the Chicago Manual of Style lists as proper.

Errrm, posted a reply on the shot, but I've actually figured out that many idjits rate nudes religiously around here....as in, if its anything less than a full habbit, it gets slammed, lol....so yes, I do think that many raters rate on something other than simple aesthetics and originality.

 

Don't worry about it, the world is full of idjits :-)....

Opinion withheld because non-paying memeber opinions are discounted ;-).

 

The only thing I'll mention is that I seriously doubt, with the insane variability among how various monitors display images, that any serious photo buyers would buy much online. I know that I won't, and most of the people I know want to see the final print that gets hung on the wall (if its prints you are talking about selling) or are going to want to see the full-rez scan/digital file if its files you are talking about selling. And if its the latter, jumping in to the dying field of low-end stock (about the only thing that I think is going to sell online) is a fool's move, IMHO.

 

Depends on what you are after, if you want the mid to high end of the photo market, the technology just ain't there yet.

 

Dammit, managed to get my opining in their after all.

 

And...an official *wahoo* and kudos on implelemting the direct credit card billing. I may well HAVE to re-up my membership now (and for the measurebators of the community who feel the insane urge to check my "join" date, the paid account was not this account, I sort of "retired" that account way back when, and only recently started posting here again)...

Can't help on the size, but I use ICE and do a smaller print for web scanning (sometimes 8x10, sometimes 5x7) and scan on an Epson 4870. I can't think of one that would scan that big a print, but I'm sure others can....but ICE is wonderful, really takes care of a lot of the spotting problems (there are still a few, but much better than with no ICE)...

I just bought my first MF, a Bronica ETRS 645. I'm enamored, completely. The only thing that I would have done differently is gone with a 6x6 instead of a 6x4.5.

The arguments start, lol. Here's my US$0.02 worth. I shoot 35mm, DSLR and *just* started shooting medium format. I haven't had many issues with digital (the few landscape type things I have done, very very few), but the largest prints I can get from Taiwan Frontier 670s are 10x15ish. I sharpen a bit, tweak here and there.....

 

...the thing is, I was (and still am) very happy with DSLR, but I can't shoot at apertures smaller than f11 (D70 with a dirty sensor, and no way to actually have it cleaned here in Taiwan). Just this morning, I did some black and white landscape type things with my 645, and was completely blown away by the tonality and sharpness, like nothing I've ever done before....and suddenly I'm getting the urge to put a roll of color film in the 645 and simply SHOOT a roll of landscapes. Yes, at 11x14, you can get digital images that are sharp (and I'm talking black and white digital conversions), but...maybe its just my Photoshop technique, but the sharpness, tonality, contrast, and density from the wet darkroom 11x14 prints has me absolutely and completely in love with MF film.

 

Mind you, I still shoot 35mm and digital where they have strengths, but I'm a complete and total convert back to film due to MF.

 

I'm not sure how much success you'll have with moving targets and nature photography, I'm a stickler for focus, and the Bronica focuses just fine for a manual focus camera, but if you're used to AF, critters tend to move quickly. I looked briefly at the new Pentax 645, mainly because of its autofocus....but got such a great deal on a second hand Bronica that I couldn't pass it up.

 

Oh, the scans of the prints in my portfolio do NOT do the sharpness and tonality of the prints justice.

 

And you DO know that Pentax is going to be releasing a digital version of the 645? Unfortunately, the price is going to be right around US$10,000 :-(.

And the mirror lockup is a HUGE issue for me (I have the ETRS). I'm planning on buying as big and heavy a tripod as I can find to compensate for it.

 

I handhold at 1/125 and above with no problems (with the 75mm), but don't try to handhold at less than 1/250 with the 150mm...I know that some people *can*, but I'm just not that steady with this camera yet. I haven't put it on a monopod, but I'd guess that I could get another 1-2 stops...

 

Oh, you can get both manuals from the Bronica (err, Tamron?) web site. I downloaded the ETRS and saw the ETRSi there...

Errr, actually, yes...there are wide format ink jets available here, but I really prefer chemical prints, and have had nightmares with injet color gamuts in the red-orange area (hence my going back to chemical prints, the tones for color can be killer with inkjet, but have had so many problems).

 

And the solution just dropped in my lap in the form of a Bronica 645 with the 3 lenses I figured I'd need and film backs and viewfinders (waist level and metered prism).

 

The price is perfect, and I know the seller very well...about US$1000 including a (Minolta? I think?) flash meter.

 

As I look at how I work, I actually think I'm going to *LIKE* the 645 over the 6x6...

Thanks for the heads up on film flatness, I actually ran across references to it, seems to be a common issue, and probably won't affect me much as I tend to not leave film in the camera (errr, even 35mm). I've done a bit of searching and found that older Pentax 645 (the manual focus system) and lenses can be had *cheap* (as in, body and 3 lenses for right arount US$1000). For that matter, I was really surprised to find that Hasselblad 500s aren't actually as expensive second hand as I thought (errr, but for what I do, I think that the Pentax 645 may be far better than the Hasselblad, no matter how sexy the darned thing is, lol). In any case, as I think about how and what I shoot, and although autofocus is really nice, I can't see how it could make a huge difference for me (errr...but it IS nice)...

Wow, absolutely fantastic discussion and incredible information. Thank you so much.

 

Errr, I don't do landscapes (can't find many in Taiwan without power lines and poles all over the place) BUT...I'm remembering one of the most incredible portraits I've ever seen, a simple shot of a woman next to a brick wall with a very detailed dress....and I swear that it felt like if I reached into the print that I would be able to feel the texture of the lace. It was shot on 4x5LF.

 

As I'ver read the posts, I think that I may well tend toward a Mamiya or Pentax 645 for MF with the intent somewhere in the back of my mind to go to LF at some point in the future. In reality, for prints larger than 10x15 (because of my digital darkroom process) I have to send DVDs to the U.S. anyway, that's the largest that Taiwan can print. And I do have a GREAT lab that I've been working with, the owner is neurotic about calibration and keeping everything fresh. Unfortunately, paper larger than 10" wide rolls just aren't imported into Taiwan (errr, and I've been meaning to try Shutterfly, but can't get past the limitation that the image has to be JPG).

 

What first hit my radar was a Mamiya 645 AFD, but I've heard of reliability problems, maybe people are just having trouble with the Chinese E series (errr, and I know I can get THOSE here....*cheap*). The appeal was that it seems best set up to at some point accept a full frame digital back *and* will let me do the things I want to with film. BUT, the availablity of service here is a serious issue, and I remembered my old Honeywell-Pentax H1 (h1, right? can't recall....made in 1961, no light meter, no battery, 55mm lens). I shot that from 1976 until roughtly 1993-4, and it suffered insane accudents (falling off a moving motorcycle was one, when I was young and dumb).....I also have to remember that when it died, I replaced it with a Nikon F80, expecting it to be less than reliable...have run a LOT of film through it, with only a single problem (high speed rewind scractches the film, and no one here can fix it....solution, low speed rewind). Hence my realization that if the body ends up with a major problem....

 

errrm....any opinions on the reliability of the Mamiya 645AFD?

Robert, thanks...both the Mamiya Pro TL and the 645AFDII got my attention, and held them for some time (errr, I'm giving this a lot of thought, not a quick decision because I'm going to end up married to whatever system I choose). I'd heard a lot of comments about needing a second body for reliability, and...errr...that's the thing, if it needs service in Taiwan, it basically isn't available.

 

I have heard GREAT reports on reliability of the Pro TL, but when I got right down to it, Pentax is a known battletank....and I do tend to shoot in some locations that are rather hazardous to camera equipment (beaches in Taiwan are notoriously windy, and you can't change a lens without getting a certain amount of sand in the process, even when changing lenses inside of bags...the stuff is truly evil). I actually might have far too much confidence in Pentax, I shot a 1961 H1 from 1976 until it died a completely unrepairable death in 1994 (33 years with a LOT of film run throgh it, and virtually no service)(err, if I'd had it serviced, I might never have bought a modern camera, lol). But, the fact remains that having anything serviced in Taiwan is a serious hit or miss situation. A CCD cleaning (for example) consists of squirting compressed air on the CCD to move the dirt around. Pec-pads don't exist here. Car servicing isn't much better (I'll never forget the time they used an empty beer can to make a shim for my motorcycles front disk brakes)....

 

Again, I've heard that the Mamiya 645 Pros have much heavier gearing than the others, so would therefore probably be as robust as a Pentax (errr, and definitely sexier)...

 

BUT...16x20?? Hmmm. Well, its definitely in the ballpark. In all honesty, a couple of the headshots I've done recently really need to be big, and I envision them in the 20x30 range, but....errr....16x20 may be close enough.

 

I guess what I'm really having trouble getting my head around is the difference in final quality between 645 and 67. My workflow for film is bascially camera-lab for film (no prints)-scanner-photoshop-16 bit tiff back to lab-prints. The scanner I'm using is an Epson 4870 (yeah, yeah...I know...sharpness issues on 35mm, but the way I do it works for me, but yep...there are definitely better scanners).

 

Will I see a dramatic improvement in detail resolution of 67 over 645? I tend to shoot very little horizontally (actually prefering a square format for a lot of things, but that's a different thread). If it is just a minor improvement, then I think the ease of untethered use of a 645 might trump the increased detail of a 67...

Hi...I'm finally getting frustrated with the complete lack of Nikon

service in Taiwan, and am also getting frustrated with too many blown

highlights in the interest of shadow detail on digital and the

inability to enlarge either digital or 35mm to the sizes that I

envision when shooting some things.

 

SO, the long and the short is that after a LOT of research, I realize

that I need a camera that is a tank. One that basically requires as

little service as possible, since service in Taiwan is spotty at best

(okay, for cleaning film bodies its great, but I simply can't get

CCDs cleaned in digital, which means moving to a 12-16MP digital to

get the print sizes I want is kinda pointless if I'm limited to F1.8-

11 because of a grimy CCD).

 

I've pretty much settled on Pentax for their bulletproof build

quality, and am pondering the 67 of the 645 system (probably new, as

getting used might be tough here).

 

I do people, mostly studio, but some location. I despise tripods,

preferring to handhold (but can probably change). I'm drawn to the 67

simply for the film realestate, I mean...its the size of a )@#$@$

business card, BUT...I realize that hand holding is going to be an

issue....which brings me to considering the 645, but I worry that I

may not get the same tones and level of detail.

 

I would be incredibly greatful for any thoughts or advice on this, I

looked at Mamiya, but see that there can be some realiability issues.

Bronica just isn't available here, that I've seen.....I'm in lust

with Rollei and with Hassleblad, but their costs (I envision needing

around 3 lenses also) are simply beyond my reach (okay, so I've

proposed marriage to the Rollei 6008 with a digital back and a couple

of film backs, but keep being told I'm trying to marry out of my

league).

 

Again, I do mostly people....portraiture and nudes, some studio still

life. I'm a terrible street photog, and will continue to fail in that

area with digital and 35mm....but I tend to be rather dynamic in a

studio, prefering to handhold rather than use a camera stand or

tripod, mainly because a particular pose and moment might trigger me

to see an insane angle and that moment is lost with too much

tripod/stand tweaking...

<div></div>

Errr, I have to confess that I'm not familiar with the SB28, but...I have a couple of odd local off brands of slave flashes. I also have a couple of SB800s, and I do *everything* in manual mode (one of the great things about digital, shoot-check-adjust power levels-shoot-check again). I've played around with iTTL with the SB800s, and although it is *really* slick, I've been using manual studio strobe and flash settings for so long that its actually harder for me (the camera's TTL system and my internal metering system are far different).

 

If the SB28 works as a slave, simply use both in manual. Check your exposure (but a warning, images seem far more contrasty on a D70 LCD than they are when you open them in Nikon Capture).

 

Hope this helps :-)...

I believe the original poster made a comment about comments being deleted, thereby it isn't off topic ;) :).

 

And, as one who has been in their shoes, it DOES take a HUGE effort not to delete certain posts, I realize that.

Simply a *brillant* response to a valid comment <insert sounds of seething sarcasm>.

Oh, Lord...I left p.net a while back, and am back under another incarnation...or is that intarnation? I dunno....but, as someone who speaks multiple languages fluently and on a regular basis, I can assure you that the fundimental problem is NOT with the choice of numbers, its with the choice of words BENEATH those numbers. It implies that a person can have a definitive view of something that transcends such simple categorization (I had thought that only photos with tits got the obligatory 1/1 or 2/2 rating from the religious zealots of the world, but I've been proven wrong again).

 

Everyone thinks they are an expert. Everyone thinks THEIR definition of photography is the holy grail of definitions by which all life is judged and damned or saved. Simple fact is, the argument over whether or not photography is an art was sorta settled back in the days of old Eddie Weston. As an art, there are as many potential definitions of what it is, what is good, what is bad, and what should be send down the toilet as there are photographers.

 

I've been around here for far longer than this account shows (errr, my other account was a paid account, and I didn't renew...and its still listed as a paid account with all priveleges, or I think it is...it was last time I logged it)...in any case, I didn't feel quite right about using a member account when my membership had lapsed, so instead of creating a furor, I simply created this one....AND....an interesting thing that I've noticed is that shots that garnered averages in the 4.2-4.6 range fare FAR FAR better under this account (using my business name)...that's the power of a few words, same shots.

 

...that's what I mean that the words beneath the numbers are what really are creating the problem. Pick different words. I almost NEVER give lower than a 3...below average is low enough. How can I call something "Bad" when I may simply be viewing it from a fundimentally different philosophy of what photographyologyistics are??

 

As someone who has spent the best part of (shudders) 30 years in the creative worlds (writing, art, theater, music, photography...heck, I can't make sphagetti without going into a zen like state of creativity--oh, and habaneros in spaghetti may get a 7 on originality, but it really deserves a 1 on aesthetics) I can tell you that photographers are the most anal of the bunch. I mean, I have YET to hear of two painters get into a fist fight over whether oils are better than watercolors (photogs do this over digital/film). I very, very rarely hear a painter say "Johnny's painting is BAD! I give it a 2!" because they realize that the value may simply be lost on them, art can't communicate to all people, a sad fact.

 

Photographers seem to be one of the few creative groups who are obsessed with numbers, ratings, or "My medium is better than yours, and anything done in your medium is schitt!"

 

Maybe photographers aren't artists, but artists become photographers.

 

The ratings are, for some of us, pure entertainment. And marketing to a certain extent...but even art needs marketing...

Odd that critical comments are often deleted here.

 

Why does it matter if a photo is or is not on a TRP page? This site has obvious editorial preference, and there is as much manipulation behind the scenes by the admins as there is with people mater rating and slam rating. The simple fact is that even giving a rip about p.net ratings is going to leave you cold, I can't think of a shot that I've posted that hasn't had someone give it a 2/2 and someone else a 7/6 or 7/7. Everyone thinks they are an expert on what "good photography" is, and the reality is that those that are experts already know that there may be an *excellent* photograph that they personally hate. A shot like that might get a low mark on aesthetics (since that is subjective) but a very high mark on originality (which is also subjective, but easier to put aside the feeling that the shot creates).

 

The entire site is really contributing to the process of dumbing down photography, but its still amusing now and again...

 

The tendency toward censorship of criticism is troubling, though...