photography by a.f. smith

I understand that the oils in your hands can damage negatives, but why the

preference for cotton gloves? I find these can leave behind small threads. Is

there an issue with latex gloves that I am unaware of?

I'd say the drop in value of all film cameras is a boon not a problem. Chances are you can replace it pretty cheap.

 

Price drop is bad for a collector, good for a user.

great, thanks guys

Hi all,

I realize this may sound like a rediculous question, but If I don't intend

to develop my LF negs myself (yet) what is the appropriate way to submit them

to the lab? Can I hand them over in the film holders and expect to get them

back? Is there some other light tight vessel I should unload the film into to

hand them over? Thanks.

I agree with nearly everything Garry says, though Steve is almost totaly backwards.

 

First off all, If you depend on a front fill to baselight your entire seen, be prepared for your subject to cast a VERY distrating shadow on your background if you background is anywhere near your subject. (Unless you come in at an angle so high or low you create unflattering eye socket shadows on your subjects face.)

 

More importantly, place your key first, as it determines the look of your scene, and then use your fill to eliminate the shadows that result.

 

Also, do not depend on the blending of two identical sources to give your key side extra exposure. If your fill is as hard as your key, they will BOTH cast shadows (the two suns that was discussed before.) Your fill light should be of a different quality (much softer) than your key, and if it is not bounced or otherwise heavily diffused should be of a lower wattage as well.

 

Garry's suggestion that you should use a reflector as your fill light is an excellent one, as this creates a very flattering, very soft, practicly shadowless light.

 

I must disagree with this though:

 

"For a light to act as a fill it has to reach all parts of the subject as seen by the camera. If it doesn't do that then, however valid the technique may be, it isn't a fill light and shouldn't be described as one."

 

A fill does not need to reach all parts of the subject, only the shadowed area, there is no need to fill in shadows where none exist. Earlier I referenced two books, one which consideres three fill placements, the other wich does not even call a front fill a "fill."

 

All in all I do think Garry and I see eye to eye. Our disagreement appears to be based on terminology, and in the end it doesn't matter what you call you lights, as long as you like how your subject looks.

I would be remiss if I did not add that simple GUIDELINES such as "place the fill light on axis", or "place the horizon on the top or bottum third of the photograph", can be very useful in helping a photographer to cope with the seemingly endless creative possibilities they are confronted with while they are learning.

 

You should take care to consider them as guidelines however. Do not be afraid to depart from them to achieve different effects when appropriate. If you find yourself in a position where your eyes like one thing, but the guidelines dictate another, it is best to trust your eyes.

It may look like two suns if you use the same light on both sides, but thats double key not, key-fill. A fill light is by definition less intense than a key, and is generally far softer. If you know what you're doing, it appears directionless. All it should be doing is adding exposure to the fill side of the face so that the appropriate level of detail can be recorded, which is why most people use a bounced source.

 

Like I said, putting the fill in the front works too, (because a proper fill does not reveal direction) but you'd better be sure that you like the reflection your fill light will make in your subject's eyes. (A horizontal fluorescent tube such as a kino-flo or a fresnel with diffusion on the barn doors make great "catchlights" that look like a natural glint in the eye, a strobe bounced of an umbrella does not, unless its off axis.)

 

Furthemore portraits in the classic sense are not generally concerned with naturalistic lighting, in fact it is the one form of photography where stylized lighting is the most prevelant. Look at the portraits posted on this website. In general they have very strong backlights. Talk about two suns! This is not objectionable in most cases though, on the contrary it is visually striking and aesthetically pleasing.

 

Go to the library or book store and flip through a book on portrait lighting. The good ones often have a top down view of lighting set ups and show you the resulting photographs. They very rarely show a fill light that is not off axis by at least 45 degrees. Keep your eye out for one called Light Fantastic. Its focus is on theatrical lighting, but they show you a lighting set up, the final photograph, and several photographs of the subject with each individual light by itself, so that you can better understand how they each effect the final product. It IS one of the few that will show you a light directly on axis, but note that they do not refer to it as a fill light, but rather a front light. (Though it is behaving as a fill in the final product.)

 

Here is a section from a book I happen to have lying in around the office that we give to our interns. (Lighting for Television & Film by Gerald Millerson, page 79)

 

Frontal fill. (On axis) Filling from around the camera position is probably the most obvious method; a soft light on or above the camera. One could argue that from this position we can fill any shadow areas seen by the camera, and there is little point in doing anything else. However, a frontal fill light does have disadvantages for certian key positions, when it further illuminates the are alreay lit by the key light and reduces the modeling.

 

Offset fill. (approx. 30 degrees off axis oppasite the key)An offset fill light is less likely to nullify the effect of the key light or add exposure, it will not reduce subtle half-tones or flatten modeling produced by the key.

 

Wide-angle fill. (Approx 80 degrees off axis oppasite the key) If you place the fill light at a greater angle to the key it lights only the shadowed area. However, there is a chance that it may produce secondary modeling there.

 

As you can see Gerald agrees with my original assertion that there is no right place for the fill light. Just put it where it looks best. Like composition, adhering to rules will only limit your creative potential.

 

Photography is my hobby, but lighting is my job, and I'm good enough at it that I can support my ever growing expenses in my hobby.

Ummm . . .

 

A fill light does not HAVE to fill the subject with light. Filling is eliminating the effect of unwanted shadows from the key light. (It fills in the shadows) If the fill light also adds light to the key side of the face, it is no longer filling, it is also adding exposure to the key side.

 

Shooting it straight on is the easy answer, but not the only answer.

 

Placing the fill light oppasite the Key can also be effective. Move th fill around until it looks the way you like. It will determine the look of the photograph far less than how you place your key though.

 

As far as ratio, 1:2 IS an excellent rule of thumb but don't let that nail you down. If your shooting headshots or beauty shots for someone, they usually prefer to see something more like 2:3 or even 1:1 because it is generally more flattering to them, though less intresting to look at. If your taking shots for YOUR portfolio you may find something like 1:4 is the most striking visually.

 

It is all an issue of taste though. The only rule you should ever adhere to in lighting is that if it looks good, it is good.

If the small bit of black is the EXACT same amount of black in everyshot, you can create a photoshop action to crop out the black band, then batch everything you've scanned when you're done scanning.

 

I would really recomend the Dimage Scan option though, its worth putting the extra time into your scans for the extra quality you get.

I have the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 II. (Old competition for the nikon) It is absolutley fantastic. The hardware is great, and the bundeled software is better than both vuescan and silverfast. It comes with digital ice, though I've never really used if for anything but grain reduction when shooting 800iso. It works pretty well for that.

 

It is no longer manufactured, but if you can find one somewhere, get it.

Hi all,

I need to a step up ring, or maybe even some new filters for my new super

graphic. Does anyone know the size of the filter threads for the 135mm optar?

Thanks.

Having never used a Mamiya, I can't say which is better. I can say that I LOVE both my Rolleis, but I wouldn't take the meter into account when purchasing. They're not much better than the sunny 16 rule. Whatever you get, plan on getting a handheld meter. (Spot would be best obviusly, but a cheap incident meter will be as good any onboard Rollei meter.)

Wow intresting question.

 

My guess is that if you slap it on a tripod and increase the exposure time so that you don't have to increase your ISO, your pics will be better because the amount of light the red and green sensors get will be equivelent.

 

But if you're shooting action, or don't have a tripod ready, the increase in noise from an increased ISO will be greater than from the white balance.

 

Also, I believe that there is a "digital reciprocity effect" that creates a small amount of noise in extremely long exposures. If your shooting outdoors at night and your exposure is already at, say 2 seconds, that stop/stop and half the filter will rob you of could make a big difference.

If you can get a PC with XP installed, its your best money to performance ratio. But those are becoming increasingly hard to find.

 

I wouldn't go near Vista with a 10-ft pole though. In that case, the Macs price tag is probably worth avoiding the headaches.

It will be hard to find a dedicated film scanner in that price range without rolling the dice on a company with mixed reviews like pacific image or the slightly better microtech.

 

I would suggest getting one from a place with a return policy that allows you to return without restoking fees even if it works fine but you just plain aren't satisfied. First hand experience is really the only way to know if a scanner will fit your needs.

 

Sorry I couldn't give you an answer that would have been easier to hear.

Thanks for all the advice everyone!

I didn't mean 6x9 is equivalent to 4x5. I meant that if I shoot low iso (50) on 6x9 and higher iso (100) on 4x5, the size I can enlarge too before the appearance of grain will be similar. Just wanted to clarify.

 

I agree with you on the movements, it?s why I got the camera, though I can take advantage of those movements just as well with a roll film adapter. (More so if I find the coverage of the lens to be lacking occasionally.)

 

I also agree that being able to develop sheet film to the tune of each individual shot will be great, but I don't have the time to delve into self developing at the moment, so for shots that I would process normally anyway, $5 dollars for eight shots is a pretty good argument against $3 for one.

 

I'm not trying to start a fight, just taking you through my thought process. If it?s faulty please lemme know. I'm very excited to be stepping into LF. Who knows, maybe the first 4x5 shot I take will blow me away so much I'll forget Pan F ever existed. Hell I've already been down that road with MF. (I bought an uncoated Rolleiflex intending to shoot an occasional roll of B&W and keeping 35mm as my mainstay. That didn't last long.) I can promise you one thing though: If the new Velvia 50 shows up in 4x5, there'll be a healthy stock in my freezer. Cheers.

Just wanted to say congrats on your new Rolleiflex.

Just want to cast my vote for the Rollieflex. Beautiful camera's.

 

Also you should be aware that not EVERY camera will be good for color. There are still plenty of VERY early Rolleiflex camera's in working condition that don't have coated lenses. You can put color through it, but you might not like the results. There are tons of websites that can help you find the date of manufacture of a camera based on serial number. As long as its a post WWII camera its a safe bet that the lens is coated.

If you're doing black and white or slides check out DR5. They don't do C41 though.

Thanks for the info everyone.

 

I realize that grain is less of a problem with a larger format, but it would bother me to know that I can enlarge the Pan F I shoot at 6x9 in my roll film adapter to a size close to that of a 4x5 sheet.

 

Also how is it that fine grained films are more touchy about contrast. I have never had an issue with Pan F, and my understanding is that slower films have more latitude, and more latitude equals less contrast. (Do finer grain films have more local contrast? That is something I would definately be ok with.)

 

After some research I'm considdering using Delta 100 in DR5. Has anyone given that a shot? Thanks again.

Hello all,

I SHOULD have a super graphic on the way to my house as we speak. It will

be my first ever 4x5 camera. I'm used to shooting Pan F in 6cmx6cm. The less

grain the better as far as I'm concerned, and I shoot mostly landscape so

length of exposure is not generally a concern. (I'm used to shooting 50iso at

f11)

Taking all that into consideration, what films would you recommend I

adopt for LF? I know efke makes a 50 iso film in 4x5, but I tried their 25iso

in medium format and was not pleased with the results. (Too contrasty for me.)

Any ideas? Thanks.

My mistake. Sorry.

You could just carry a small grey card around with you. That's what I did before I had a spot meter. You can't really expose for any specific element of the scene, but it does speed up the whole process.

 

Yes, If you've got a spot meter, Placing the highlights 1.5 to two stops over medium grey is the way to go, but I would recomend going straight of the grey card reading anyway. (Rather than closing down a 1/2 stop or so to compensate) It doesn't make sense in my head, but the first roll of slides I even shot was Vevlia. I used a grey card for them all, and they all came out spot on. Didn't miss any detail anywhere in the scene.

I agree that Reala has a better pallette for landscapes, and my experience has been that is easier to achieve a better color balance when scanning. (Pro 160 can be frustrating at times) If you like Pro 160s and you shoot landscapes, you should give at least one roll of Reala a whirl. You also might wanna give 160c a shot. I've never used it, but I felt the older NPC was better for landscapes than the NPS.

 

If you get a Rolleiflex you can load it with 400 and still have about the same level of grain on a given print size as you would with 160 at 35mm. (Plus you'll fall in love it.)

 

I have to disagree that 160s is anything like Porta 160. Porta is grainier but also sharper. I prefer less grain, but that is a matter of taste. (I also think the Porta is noticeably grainier while only moderately sharper.) I also don't believe that Pro 400 is repackaged NPH. Pretty sure its a new formula.