roberto_lins

Hi all,

Although I used to do some nature photography in the past, my

interests have changed a bit. In the mean time I got rid of my

100-300/4.5-5.6 and 300/4L. In the last years the longest lens I've

been using is a 100mm (on 35mm). Recently, I picked up a digital body.

Croping factor taking into account the longest I'd have would be a

160mm equivalent.

Ok, here is the problem. In two weeks I'll go to Africa. There, I'll

spend a few days in a safari. Since it's my first safari, I have no

clue how close does one get to the animals. Will the 160mm equiv. be

enough for some sort of "enviromental portraiture of the animals"? I

don't care about geting tight, just close enough to get their full

bodies into the surrounding environment.

I'm not interest on zooms or big lenses, so I thought about getting a

200/2.8L (320/2.8 equiv. on the digital body!). However, it's a bit of

money for the use it'll have afterwards. Rental in not an option for me.

Thanks for your time,

Roberto

Hi all,

Let me start saying that I have no experience with inkjet printing.

All my prints were done, so far, in a wet darkroom. I especially like

to use highly-textured heavy papers such as Arches, Fabriano 5 and the

like.

During the last two days I've been reading a lot of info about

possible inkjet candidates that could produce similar results to what

I get in the darkroom. However, at the moment, the answer seems to be

far from reachable. The printer would be mostly used to produce

letter/A4 size B&W work.

Right now, it seems to me that one of the three models below would do it.

1) Epson R800 (or R300),

2) Canon i960,

3) HP 7960

At this point, I'm +/- familiar with their specs. Keeping the intended

use in mind, I kindly ask your suggestions and experiences. Additional

comments are certainly welcome.

Thanks in advance,

Roberto

I'm not so sure if your exposure times are so short. It depends on the

final printed area. Here it goes the details of what I normally use, so

you can compare to yours. Remember that for the same "printed" area, you have 4 to 5 more negative area, so more light passing through your negative and so hitting the paper. I use ca. 1.5 to 4.5 minutes for a

"single double-pass" coating (and so printed) area of ca. 30 x 24 cm.

I agree that avoind bubbles with the foam brushes is tricky and it took me a few trials until to get it to a decent stage. I like the foam brushes because it allows me to coat more papers before the gelatin cools down and becames thick. I keep the gelatin very liquid (warmer as possible) and dip only the tip of the brush into the gelatin. I spread it evenly onto the paper until the brush is out of gelatin and repeat the operation until to cover the desired area. I

repeat the operation in the orthogonal direction and let it dry overnight.

"Does it make the gelatin less fargile while swollen..."

Yes, the hardener will basically keep the gelatin molecules together avoinding structure breaking and separation from the surface. I read that one can add a small amount of chrome alum hardening agent to the emulsion (gelatin) before coating with the same intent above, but I

have never used myself.

"Is it possible, specially if the gelatin was a bit on the cool side, that the emulsion was too thick?"

Absolutely yes. I would think it's a very common problems. You also say that the paper was partially dry. I sounds like trouble to me. I would either go with one "double pass" coat or let it to dry completely before re-coating it. I have problems with bubbles when passing the second layer onto a paper containing a "humid" emulsion.

emulsion layer. A thin coat helps to obtain an even surface and to

avoid bubbles. Exposures are long though... I expose between ca. 1.5 and 4 minutes from 120-film frames. 35 mm frames would take longer with my single "double-pass" coating procedure.

Surface quality is "very" important. Some surfaces will benefit from different treatments before coating. I would rather suggest starting with a heavy paper (the non-textured version helps to avoid bubbles), like Fabriano 5, or Arches Aquarelle. If you don't want to pay too much, Fabriano Artistico is a good option. Alternatively, any other paper made from 100% cottom fibers or good quality rag should suffice. A heavier paper will also stand better the long washing times.

Bubbles will form if the emulsion cools down during the coating. You

should use a water bath to keep the emsulsion at the desired temperature. Another factor can also be the coating technique. It should be applied even and fast. I let my papers to dry out completely (overnight) before using them. I have used papers in not-so-dry conditions and the results were less them reasonable, for me! I use a foam brush as well and double "pass" of liquid light (vertical and horizontal - order depends on the subject portrayed). Rinse water temperature seems fine to me, however after fixing it rinsing times should be over 40 minutes (I rinse for ca. 1 hour), unless the paper

has received a gelatin coating and is dried and flat. Some fixers can be a problem. Adding a hardening agent to the fixer will help a lot, (if not essential). 10 minutes seems to be a bit too much fixing. I use 6 minutes, maximum. I tone my images right away (after the 1 hour rinse).

(I'm very bad when it comes to upload my photos, but I have three examples (printed and toned) on Aquarelle paper hete on photo.net)

I have two 35mm, one 6x6 e about 9 months ago I bought the RF645 because

I wanted to experiment with rangefinders, but didn't want to buy yet another 35mm. The specs of the Mamiya 7(II) and the RF645 didn't seem to be very diferent, but hands on tells you that the Mamiya is way to bulky, specially with the lens on the camera. The lenses are bigger. Sure you get 6x7, but for travelling I'm happy with a smaller format and compactness. The 100mm lens focus down to 1.2 m and it's perfect for a (not-too-tight) head and shoulders. Anyway, if I have anything to tell you, I'd say be careful if you buy a RF645. It's addictive!

I barely use my SLRs nowadays... The fact that there are no many lenses and accesories is an advantage. You concentrate in the photography, not in the zillions of equipment options.

Now, if I could only choose two cameras to have and use, I'd go for the RF645 or Mamiya 7II and the Contax 645, as they are completely different cameras. What to get? Depends on your style. As previosly said RF and SLR are not really comparable.

If you want to use MF for street photography, rangefinders are the way

to go. I'd suggest either a Bronica RF645 or a Mamiya 6/7(II).

Rolleis have an internal camera meter, which makes it less akward. Still big and noisy, as any MF SLR. Now, if you need to use a light meter, transfer the readings to the camera, focus and ...

the scene is gone! I'm not saying it's not possible, but definitely not the most convenient way. TLRs are also a good option. If you have to use a 6x6 SLR for street photography, your best bet is to get one with an internal camera meter, IMO. (Personally, I have a SQ-Ai and wouldn't ever consider to use it for street photography).

Alan,

I think it's great when someone is willing to help to someone else.

But why not continuing the discussion here, so the information is archived and others can benefit in the future?

I think Colm has said everything important. I use Arches and Fabriano papers and Liquid Light. To avoid bubbles, it's important to keep the gelatin always warm. I use a warm water bath around the gelatin recipient. Some coating methods will be better than others. One

option for even coating is to pre-coat the paper with gelatin.

(ca. 44g of food gelatin/l of water). Dip the paper and move it

around for rougly a minute. Dry it out and make it flat (I use books).

Taping the paper on the table will avoid curling. After

developing/toning I hang the print to dry. Before it's completely dry, I place the print over a thin absorvent (acid-free) material, under a couple of matts and lots of big books on top of it.

Emre,

Nice questions. I'll try to go direct to your points, as requested.

1. I think art has been always done like that. As said above, there's

always an intention in the creation of something, regardless of how

much personal or ephemeral this intention might be.

2. A computer generated graphics can be a 'work-of-art', IMO. Whether

one appreciates is another story. In the same way, we are given brushes & canvas, films & cameras, clay & water, we can also be given

an algorithm and a CPU. What one does with the tools and the corresponding intentions behind it is what makes it art or not.

3. I believe intuition is part of every *creative* work. If ramdomness is used, the user had an intention to do so. People take

the time to appreaciate whatever has a meaning or deliver a message to them. Early Modern Art *tends* to concentrate on perfection, beauty and harmony with low political and social content. Cubism breaks down some concepts. Dadaism's 'Art for the sake of Art' completely destroys the pre-conception that Art has to be beauty and harmonic.

Their intention relys on the absence of a purpose (concept) in Art creation (but that's a purpose and with intention). It's actually the introduction of phylosophical meaning to Art, that goes beyond the object itself. The 'Art with meaning' reachs its peak with the Abstractionism and Constructivism, where the knowledge of a defined content is likely necessary for comtemplation and understading.

There's an intent behind everything. A message doens't need to be concrete, but has to emcompass and to have a far-reaching. Otherwise, it's simply not Art for not being considered as such.

<i>If you're from Brazil, you might look at what your own state is doing to street children before you start sounding off.</i>

<p>

Ian,

<p>

Although I don't live there for several years, I think I still can say that it's not a fair comparison. The problem in Brazil is much more complex and comprises education, quality of life, political problems and lots of foreign interference on the economy of the country. Besides it's a rather localized problem mainly in the cities of Rio and Sao Paulo. On the other hand, cases like this in the US are intrinsically bound to the spread out hypocritical puritanism way of thinking of a quite significant part of the population that has gained strenght lately. Just as a note, I've lived in the US for four years, including a year in Houston, TX, so I'm talking out of personal

observations.<p>

That doesn't explain or justify Luis' accusations, but it's definitely something for the American people to sort out. Next elections are coming! I won't ever be convinced that the 9/11 incident (and all the shit associated to it) would have happened the election results were different...

Rick,

A search here will show you that if teh camera's serial number starts

with 1, you have the framelines of your RF645 matched for the 100mm lens. If started with 0, for the 135mm lens.

I bought the RF645 100/4.5 lens a couple of months or so ago. As expected, it's very good. What I liked most, however, is that the lens is perfectly able to do a tight head-and-shoulders. It does focus down to ca. 1.2 meters. I've focused carefully, shot it wide open and printed up to 24x18cm. No problems at all.

MORE REALITY COMING...

The Farm Security Administration (FSA) actually hired photographers

to "sell" to the public images with a very defined content in mind.

Despite of the crisis, low wage, migrant displacement, human elements

are shown as proud of their hard work, full of strenght (The Migrant Mother,

for example), satisfied and looking forward to the future. I'm *NOT* saying that

Lange didn't do a fabulous body of work, just that her photographs

may speak little about the social reality then.

Now, go figure why Walker Evans

was kicked out of the FSA...

I have used a Canon double element close-up (250D) with my Bronica SQ-Ai

and sharpness in 8X8 was absolutely amazing. Didn't go further than that

though. You might want to close down your lens quite a bit. Depth of field becomes *very* limited.

Remember that the shutter speed dial on the finder does NOT work if the

dial in the camera is on B! So, just keep it in anything else.

For the archives... I finally decided to buy the RF645 100mm f/4.5. I

have shot three rolls of film so far and a few frames ca. 1.25-1.3 meters and wide-open. The good news is that focus is accurate even when the lens is used wide-open (f/4.5) and indeed produces a very nice tight head-and-shoulders. I couldn't be happier with it! Thanks to the ones who have

mentioned that to me.

Last Friday I had the opportunity to handhold both cameras side by side

in the professional imaging 2003 here in Zurich. While the Mamiya looks

nicer than the Pentax, IMO, and has the possibilities of exchanging the backs, it's not as quiet as the Pentax model and the Mamiya AF was *really* disapointing. Another feature in the Pentax is the option of one or three-point AF, while the Mamiya uses only the central point. Maybe not a big deal for many, but I'd look at a 645 SLR AF to replace

the 35mm SLR AF. Otherwise, I'd rather go with a 6x6 or 6x7 SLR. If

you want portability, the RF645 is a great kit! But remember that's a RF, so not for everyone...

Vijay,

I hate Solaris for different reasons, but I'm using Netscape 7 on Solaris and have no problem viewing it...