martino
-
Posts
43 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by martino
-
-
There is a new one is believe
www.frugalphotographer.com
Has both Efke and Macophot.
-
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.
-
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?
-
If at all possible I would shoot a roll first, however,
it would be surprising to me that it would not work. Perhaps
a good question for RUG, Rollei user group.
-
David,
<p>
I just got my shippment from Fotoimpex in Berlin.
Their website has these developing times etc for PL100
http://www.fotoimpex.de/Technik/Entwicklertab/entwicklertab.HTM
<p>
Cheers and Good Luck!
-
I am beginning to see that NYC is no different than Toronto where I live. The 'big' stores have a good selection but suffer from high prices and often poor customer service. Thanks for the tips thus far
I will check some of these out. Any photo fairs over Easter in NYC?
-
Does anyone have any suggestions on goog medium format stores
in NYC? I am looking for medium format folders, TLRs and collectible
equipment in general.
-
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.
-
Rolleiflex Automat or Ricoh Diacord hands down. Both should cost
no more than $100 if you can find them.
-
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.
-
So, let's say you had a Holga and wanted to take a picture of
yourself. How would you do it? No mirror and no friends. Could you
build a self-timer?
-
For a cheaper option try the Russian Horizon 6x6 loupe, usually
available on eBay for around $40 USD. Glass loupe of excellent
quality. Coated as well.
-
Yikes Joe. Sorry. Did not mean to have this post show up often.
Apologies to everyone. I thought it was not going through. Now I know better.
-
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".
-
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".
-
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".
-
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".
-
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".
-
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".
-
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".
-
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".
-
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".
-
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".
-
Adrian,
As luck would have it. I did see one in Vitoria a few months back.
The store was called Rincon de Coleccionsita or something very similar. Nice camera. He wanted 20.000 pesetas for it. Lens was a Tessar in good condition.
Anthotypes (Flowers as emulsion).
in Black & White Practice
Posted
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,