daniel_janssen

Hi Khoa,

 

I once had one. The spotmeter did not fit.

 

Daniel

Mario,

 

Philip Greenspun wrote: If you ignored my photography advice (BRING EVERYTHING YOU NEED dj) and end up needing to buy film or, God forbid, a camera in Venice, then try Foto Aguiari at Strada Nova 4302 in Cannaregio (tel 522-4031), just across the Grand Canal from the Rialto Markets (if you take the gondola traghetto, you'll be practically on top of the store). Here you can buy Fuji consumer and professional film, a Canon EOS-5 body, or even a Rolleiflex. If they don't have what you need, ask for directions to another shop nearby.

 

http://www.photo.net/italy/venice-shopping

 

Traveling with exposed film is no problem at all as long as you carry it on the plane.

 

D.

Hi, I have used a Pentax spotmeter (modified by zone VI) for a while.

I have always used the scale on top of the meter to read out, F-stops

and shutterspeeds. However, a couple of days ago I 'interpreted' the

values in the meter as EV-values and set them out on my Hassy lenses,

only to discover after the development of my negs that the Pentax

values are about two stops off normal EV-values! Has anyone else

experienced this? The scale on the meter are fine, but somehow the

values in the meter are in no way related to EV values, are they?

 

Daniel

The 2005 was shot by Patrick Demarchelier on Polaroid instant film. He may wel have used his Litman 4x5 rangefinder for this shoot.

 

Daniel

If you opt for digital: go for 6x4.5. A larger format is useless because there are no digital backs for anything bigger than 6x4,5 (more or less). From what I have heard, chances are limited that there ever will be.

 

D.

email Wolfgang. He is very helpfull.

 

Daniel

HI Jacques,

 

I have never been to India. But I have seen a lot of B&W work made there. I think the biggest mistake you can make there is using slow film. Light tends to be hard and under those conditions slow film is not the way to go. My suggestion would be TriX.

 

When using filters, remember that on higher altitudes, the filter works stronger. So using a red filter in Nepal may be pushing it.

 

Dust may be on other thing to be prepared for. And not to forget high temperatures. If you are planning to shoot color; better bring normal film and not the professional stuff that tends to be more sensitive to heat.

 

D.

Binyuan,

 

In my experience the tonality of APX 100 en 25 is quite simular, the rest is different (sharpness, grain, resolution. I used 25 for landscapes and 100 for studio portraits. Now I use PanF for landscapes and I am very happy with the results (although I miss that highlight glow of APX 25 sometimes).

 

However, since is dicovered that a genius like Michael Kenna just uses any film he can lay his hands on and still gets (more or less) the same results, I do not worry about film too much anymore.

 

Daniel

I have had a 2003 and a 205. I bought a 503 and got rid of the 205, kept the 2003 as a spare. Reason? I never used the camera meter, I wanted more flash speed. Wanted to get rid of the bulky and heavy F lenses. My new Cfi 50 mm has about one stop less opening, but I got a F32 to compensate for that. Most of my stuff is shot with a tripod anyway. A 50/0/1/3 will outlive you. Just my 2 cents.

 

Daniel

I do not know, but it is typical for fake products to make those small changes in the name.

As far as I know Wolff used a medium format camera. Something like a Mamiya or Yashica Twin lens. I have a small book that showes all images in their original square (6x6) format. With the right technique you can hold these camera's very steady even with longer (1/15) exposures. Film looks TriX-ish to me. Very impressive indeed.

Hi Renato,

 

I have never seen a light leak light that. So my guess would be flare. Did you use a shade?

 

Daniel

For B&W in the Grand Canyon I would suggest a red filter.

 

D.

Pan F is really great. But if you do not want to make wall size enlargement you will be equally happy with FP4. APX 100 will give you a certain glow in the highlight which is some kind of unsharpness. I like that very much for portraits, but APX 100 is not the sharpest film around imho.

The PM45 with the blue stripes also fit the 203 FE and 205 FCC/TCC. The other ones do not (although they can be modified). Daniel

AFAYK just the ring. There is no need to protect it. There are no lens element, etc. Just a tube.

Daniel

Guy, I shoot medium format and even at 35x35 cm prints I see no grain, neither from Pan F nor from Delta 100 or Acros at a normal viewing distance. Surely I can see grain from TriX. BUt the question is: the different look of Pan F versus Acros for instance...

Last night I did some printing. I printed some old style films (non-

T grain of D grain like Pan F and APX) and some new style (Delta,

Acros). Of course I was expecting the different greyscale that

everybody seems to agree on, but comparing the dry prints, I have a

hard time to distinguish the film with a 'technical' look from films

with a traditional look. Maybe it is just me. Or maybe I just do not

know what to look for. I know that I should not care about this as

long as I am happy with the results, but I am the kind of guy who

likes to know and likes to learn. Does anybody have a side to side

comparison online somewhere? Can anybody discribe the difference

more precise than I can? Or is this a dumb question after all?

 

Daniel

I might add that green, yellow and red and orange also lower your shadow values and thus enhance the contrast which can be nice for architecture. Furthermore the effect of the filters differ from time of day and place in the world. At higher altitudes for instance the effects will be stronger. In Northern Europe you can easily use red and strong orange filtering while in the American West these filters are usually too strong (for my taste).

Also, filters only work with sunlight. During overcast and night they have no visual effect as far as I know.

the 150 mm Blad = 80 mm in your digital format. To get the same kind of results in medium format you'll need a 180 mm at least. Another option is combining the 150 mm with a 30mm extension tube. This way you will be able to come closer. Or you can use a 2 x tele mutar.

Well a camera adds 10 pounds ;-)

First thing that is wrong with the picture is the fact that is is unsharp, due to maybe bad focussing (which happens easily at f4 at close range) or camera movement (which is almost inevitable at 1/30 of 1/60 in medium format).

Secondly, in order to bring out her features in a picture she will have to use makeup. Even the most natural looking photomodels use tons of that stuff. In natural (front) light you will need even more to get contrast in the face.

A higher standpoint could help as someone already pointed out. Or your could he looked up a bit more.

So there is a lot of room for improvement. Blaming the lens won't help. Daniel

If I were to take only one body and lens, it would be the 503 and the 50mm. I never leave home without the 50mm and my guess is that 85% of my landscapes are shot with that lens.

With two lenses my choice would be the 50 and the 100. Three it would be the 50, 100 and 180.

You do not have a 100 (yet), so in that case it would be the 80. I do think the 100mm is more useful though. I seldom use the 150 mm for landscapes: too short for real tele work. I have never seen a 180 mm FE by the way.... The 180 is probably a CF(i)

However with the 205 you can leave your lightmeter at home and you will have a 'backup' shutter....

To the best of my knowledge: Hassy filters were made by Heliopan with Hassy T* coating and a slightly different bayonet that gives you a smoother operation than Heliopan's own filters.

B&W also makes non-MRC filters by the way.

I too like the image very much!

I had great results with APX 100 and I can recommend Fuji Across as well. For more bite: use Tri-X.

daniel