Jump to content

martino

Members
  • Posts

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by martino

  1. Hi there,

    I have done some work with Anthotypes recently.

    http://www3.sympatico.ca/zubita/altphoto/

    I used the article from the British Journal of Photography

    to make mine. Quite easy really although patience is requires

    and much sunlight. I used red poppies.

    And so far I have not noticed any fading over the last two months.

    There are other descriptions in older texts like Joseph Eder's

    History of Photography and there is a book on eBay right now:

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/

    eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2560970019&category=2196&rd=1

    If you outbid please share, ;-)

    It's a lovely process and does work. Suitable for fine art or large negative

    printing.

    Cheers,

  2. Dave,

     

    Andrew and Jeffrey are quite right. A Rolleicord, yAutocord or Yashicamat perhaps even a Ricoh Diacord are fine for staring out.

    A friend of mine got a Rolleicord V lastweek and was very happy.

    TLRs are fun and perform well. The Rolleicord V is the best deal

    for the money. You can likely get one for $100-125 on eBay. Apart

    from this Andrews advice is solid and you should see this photo

    by Jeffrey Goggin ...

    http://cgi.linkclub.or.jp/~dmakos/imgsquare/index.cgi?read=1948

    ... to get an idea what an Autocord is capable of.

  3. True. Agfa 50 rocked my world of colours. The prints from my Rolleiflex would with this film made people gasp. It was all just a natural response to great colour. Nice photo Jeff, btw, and I hope for all of us that Agfa brings it back. Letter writing campaign anyone?
  4. My ideal Rolleiflex is the 2.8D with the Planar lens. I dislike the lightmeter in the E and F models, although EV is no hard to use. The Xenotar or 3.5 Planar are also just fine. No big difference. The only reason I would get an F model is for the removable viewing hood and screen. Easier to clean but most change the screen only once I assume. The bayonet III accessories are also VERY pricey. But if money is no object then go for the most expensive model and you will have a camera that will never lose its value as long as it stays in good shape. Did I mention that the photos from a Rolleiflex are fantastic? Perhaps a nice 3.5E model (with Bayonet II) would do as well. Have fun.
  5. Kevin and Todd,

     

    Thank for your concern about my state of loneliness. Actually, I am a social person and do have some friends, mostly other photographers. Problem is they would not be caught dead with a Holga in their hands.

    Major gearheads. I like the parakeet idea but, birds frighten me. Todd, perhaps I should stick to contact printing like gem-like Rollei

    squares instead but I will try out the Holga for fun.

     

    Olivier and Charles, thank you for your comments as well. I think I will experiment with a remote triggering device involving a clamp. I have already managed to get the Holga onto a tripod.

     

    Thanks for all the fun/practical advise. If it proves anything, Holga users are very cool.

  6. Joe,

     

    I just got home with my latest batch of b&w prints taken with the old trusty Rolleiflex C, 2.8 Planar. The lens is wonderful. I found that

    people are blown away by the contrast, colours, tones and detail of this Zeiss lens. The Schneider lenses are right up there too. Really no

    huge difference. I think Marc James Small (Zeiss Historical Society) said it best; "I have never met a ZEISS lens I did not like." The rest

    is up to you. Go for the "C".

  7. Joe,

     

    I just got home with my latest batch of b&w prints taken with the old trusty Rolleiflex C, 2.8 Planar. The lens is wonderful. I found that

    people are blown away by the contrast, colours, tones and detail of this Zeiss lens. The Schneider lenses are right up there too. Really no

    huge difference. I think Marc James Small (Zeiss Historical Society) said it best; "I have never met a ZEISS lens I did not like." The rest

    is up to you. Go for the "C".

  8. Joe,

     

    I just got home with my latest batch of b&w prints taken with the old trusty Rolleiflex C, 2.8 Planar. The lens is wonderful. I found that

    people are blown away by the contrast, colours, tones and detail of this Zeiss lens. The Schneider lenses are right up there too. Really no

    huge difference. I think Marc James Small (Zeiss Historical Society) said it best; "I have never met a ZEISS lens I did not like." The rest

    is up to you. Go for the "C".

  9. Joe,

     

    I just got home with my latest batch of b&w prints taken with the old trusty Rolleiflex C, 2.8 Planar. The lens is wonderful. I found that

    people are blown away by the contrast, colours, tones and detail of this Zeiss lens. The Schneider lenses are right up there too. Really no

    huge difference. I think Marc James Small (Zeiss Historical Society) said it best; "I have never met a ZEISS lens I did not like." The rest

    is up to you. Go for the "C".

  10. Joe,

     

    I just got home with my latest batch of b&w prints taken with the old trusty Rolleiflex C, 2.8 Planar. The lens is wonderful. I found that

    people are blown away by the contrast, colours, tones and detail of this Zeiss lens. The Schneider lenses are right up there too. Really no

    huge difference. I think Marc James Small (Zeiss Historical Society) said it best; "I have never met a ZEISS lens I did not like." The rest

    is up to you. Go for the "C".

  11. Joe,

     

    I just got home with my latest batch of b&w prints taken with the old trusty Rolleiflex C, 2.8 Planar. The lens is wonderful. I found that

    people are blown away by the contrast, colours, tones and detail of this Zeiss lens. The Schneider lenses are right up there too. Really no

    huge difference. I think Marc James Small (Zeiss Historical Society) said it best; "I have never met a ZEISS lens I did not like." The rest

    is up to you. Go for the "C".

  12. Joe,

     

    I just got home with my latest batch of b&w prints taken with the old trusty Rolleiflex C, 2.8 Planar. The lens is wonderful. I found that

    people are blown away by the contrast, colours, tones and detail of this Zeiss lens. The Schneider lenses are right up there too. Really no

    huge difference. I think Marc James Small (Zeiss Historical Society) said it best; "I have never met a ZEISS lens I did not like." The rest

    is up to you. Go for the "C".

  13. Joe,

     

    I just got home with my latest batch of b&w prints taken with the old trusty Rolleiflex C, 2.8 Planar. The lens is wonderful. I found that

    people are blown away by the contrast, colours, tones and detail of this Zeiss lens. The Schneider lenses are right up there too. Really no

    huge difference. I think Marc James Small (Zeiss Historical Society) said it best; "I have never met a ZEISS lens I did not like." The rest

    is up to you. Go for the "C".

  14. Joe,

     

    I just got home with my latest batch of b&w prints taken with the old trusty Rolleiflex C, 2.8 Planar. The lens is wonderful. I found that

    people are blown away by the contrast, colours, tones and detail of this Zeiss lens. The Schneider lenses are right up there too. Really no

    huge difference. I think Marc James Small (Zeiss Historical Society) said it best; "I have never met a ZEISS lens I did not like." The rest

    is up to you. Go for the "C".

  15. Joe,

     

    I just got home with my latest batch of b&w prints taken with the old trusty Rolleiflex C, 2.8 Planar. The lens is wonderful. I found that people are blown away by the contrast, colours, tones and detail of this Zeiss lens. The Schneider lenses are right up there too. Really no huge difference. I think Marc James Small (Zeiss Historical Society) said it best; "I have never met a ZEISS lens I did not like."

    The rest is up to you. Go for the "C".

×
×
  • Create New...