chrisgibbs

<p>Hi Guys,<br>

I'm looking to order a bunch of Nielsen Frame Profile #33 Colorwave Black frames in 16" x 20" and I'm looking for a good on-line supplier, any ideas?<br>

Thanks in advance!<br>

Cheers,<br>

Chris Gibbs<br>

<b>Signature URL removed by moderator. DO NOT post signature URLs on photo.net, per the Terms of Use.</b>

Hi Chris,

Fantastic lens - really a two for one deal! Below F2 it's a fantastic dreamy thing, above it's

a technical wonder, it just has a great clean look (as is and does the 85F1.2 - they're a

great combo).

I'd ignore the review sites on this one if you love very clean looking images (no fringing

above F2) and if you like B&W this lens rocks wide open!

Best,

Chris

http://www.chrisgibbs.com

I use the Olympus E1 in a very dusty enviroment (airbourne glacial silt - it's akin to flour).

The sensor cleaner is flawless in the field. I'd suspect the newer Canon implementation to be

even better as is the newly upgraded Olympus version. Certainly NOT a gimmick, as I've

never had to clean the E1 sensor. Good on Canon for picking it up, just another thing you

don't have to worry about on the new Canons.

regards,

Chris

Andreea,

I came full circle, back to the Hasselblad, mainly for the *battery free* operation (as is the

TLR). Plus, for me, the way you pre-release the mirror on the Hasselblad was *a must* go

have a play with one if you're not familiar with that feature.

Now, aesthetics, again *for me* I just love the way the Hasselblad film backs put the

notches in the film rebates (looks great when you print full-frame). I wanted a way to

*separate* my work from the crowd (I shoot B&W, all scanned on a MF scanner, notches

too;-), it just looks very retro and somehow real.

As some have mentioned, pick your film, develop a style and go for it. MF, I feel, offers no

advantages today *IF* you're shooting color AND just looking at resolution! I shoot fast

B&W, then butcher it in Rodinal (grainy), so, for me better *quality* could be had from

35mm ;-) But, as I said before, the MF negatives just take on this *look*......

Aesthetic quality of the format AND the way one interacts *with it* are vastly

different to digital and 35mm. Many top pro's have not *yet* giving up on film and older

MF kit. I found the Rollie too slow.

As for which to buy....... that's impossible to answer *for you* all I can say is (after using

both cameras you mention) that the Hasselblad is the one I came back to after trying all

the others. Hasselblad is very easy to work with, sort of a Zen thing, you just get into a

rhythm and what you see in the VF is what you get!

Hope my ramblings help?

Best,

Chris

Hi,

All the above points are valid, BUT, there are two important *issues* with the zoom lens!

The first one being *infintity focus*. Those of us coming from a traditional background

appreciate a lens tha can be set to *infintity* and left in *manual focus mode*. All the

zooms I've used lately focus beyond infinity ;-)

Shooting, for example, the landscape image in *autofocus* is overcomplicating a simple

task.

Number two, the viewfinder image, which on these *modern* reduced frame cameras is a

great deal dimmer than it used to be on traditional kit.

Best,

Chris

http://www.dancingmind.net

Stunning use of Xpan format!!!

Best,

Chris

Sorry, I forgot to add, you can shoot this lens wide open all day and it's pinners, simply

stunningly sharp.

Best,

Chris

Marc,

As for exact field of view I'll leave that to others to answer. As for the lens, it's VERY

special, lovely and wide yet retains the feel of a standard lens *top to bottom and in the

center* IF you can follow my rather wacky explanation ;-) Never really been a fan of glass

this wide, but as the top & bottom of the frame are effectively cropped off by the skinny

format *it just feels right*.......

Now, as for the filter, not that easy to quantify! I shoot fast B&W only, print *full-frame*

borders too and DO NOTICE the fall off at the edges of the frame. This *for me* is only

evident wide open (F4), but looks very subtle, almost as if burnt in on a final print.

I'd say, shooting without the filter gives one the option to open up and indroduce this

effect to your advantage and if you don't like it just stop down to F5.6 or smaller (the

center filter puts you at 5.6 anyway) nothing lost IMHO by *leaving it off*.

Have you looked at some of the Eastern European films at FreeStyle Photo, some very

inexpensive stuff there, PLUS, if you prefer *old-style* looking films, I'd say you'd find the

selection to your liking.

Best,

Chris

Ellie,

That noise is normal. I used RF645 for many years, got mine as soon as they were

introduced and kept until Bronica went belly up!

I had all three lenses (included the 135mm) and they all made the same *funky* sound, my

135mm was also matched to both my bodies by Intro Photo in the UK (Bronny importer to

Europe).

Best,

Chris

The Bronica's 54mm wide is it. I never measured mine, bought it used with no

instructions. VERY nice bit of kit though.

On a side note, there's been some GREAT wide glass on KEH.COM for the Bronica ETRSi,

saw that 30mm for $850 a while back - what a steal!!! Plus, the flourite 500mm for a few

thousand!

Your choices are numerous here. BUT don't forget one of the best films to shoot with

these funky formats, namely Infra-red. Over on < http://

www.freestylephoto.biz/ > they've got a bunch of well priced (often funky) 35mm

emulsions!

Harvey,

Sometimes I find my Xpan a little too skinny and resort to waisting a little film with a set of

masks on the Blad 503 body. I picked them up from B&H for about $35, there's a nice

panoramic mask in there, it's about 2:1 ratio and is great for a *stretched* 35mm look,

quite unique really. There are also a couple of 645 masks in the kit, though I've never

used those!

The masks basically crop the 120 film-back ON the camera, giving you a nice *key-line*

around each reduced frame (for traditional darkroom work).

A nice option and great *if* you want to travel light (and battery free) with just one roll (or

two) of film. Plus, you can mix up 6x6, 645, 2:1 pano all on on roll of 120 film.

Chris

PS. I wish that the format was the same 24x58mm that bronica used though, that, for me,

is the most pleasing!

Ilkka wrote , jul 05, 2006; 01:37 a.m.

"which looks better the 35mm adapter panos or the cropped 6x7 panos"

Here's where (for me) the big question comes into play! To go 35mm OR crop the 120

frame?

With the 35mm frame you have the ability to print the borders (sloppy or just black key-

line). For a b&w shooter this can be VERY desirable, yes, you can ADD the effect post with

PS *BUT* we're now at the point where we might as well shoot with digital kit anyways :-0

The 35mm back ALSO offers far more choice as to film type AND processing options!

Not really a fan of cropping the frame, just seems like a plain old waist of perfectly good

(silver) real-estate.

Just one opinion,

Chris

Harvey,

Take a look at the Bronica ETRSi, I had a few back in the day and the panoramic backs are

first rate. I think they're 24x58mm on 35mm film, a super format, nicer I'd say than my X-

Pan (a little too pano at 24x65mm).

Bronica stuff is going very cheep over on < www.keh.com >.

Hope this helps,

Chris

Hi Andy,

If you've got the cash for the 9000 don't give it another thought!

My rational was *I wanted to replace my B&W enlarger!* I looked at Imacon too....

Here was my criteria:

1. I print B&W

2. I wanted *full-frame with sloppy black borders from my 503 and X-Pan*

I bought the rotating glass holder. Removed the *bottom glass* [carefull it's taped in

place]. Measured the glass [thickness too], got a whole bunch [of replicas] made out of

aluminum. Now, I cut appertures, just slightly larger than my Xpan and 503 negatives in

the middle of the aluminum [like negative carriers] with a dremel and file.

After this, I just sprayed them matt black. Each one, wether it be Xpan, 120 or whatever

size, is now an intechangable negative carrier [regular size, FF or sloppy it's your choice].

The results look EXACTLY like film printed on a traditional condenser enlarger [with a filed

carrier in my case], I'm more than happy!

Best,

Chris

PS. I'd post one BUT cannot figure out this system GO FIGURE ;-)

....Don't know about Canon's 1-series cameras but I have the 5D and its viewfinder is not

so much larger than my old 10D - and certainly much smaller than the viewfinder of my

OM-1. I would like to get a FF digital camera with an OM-1 kind of viewfinder....

I think that all the viewfinders (on pro-line cameras have been *high eyepoint* (smaller)

AND the 5D is 95% (thereabouts), plus high-eye point, so that's two strikes against it!

The 5D however IS huge compaired to my E1, as for my OM2n's, I cannot remember, they

got traded for the F3 when it was introduced (a mistake) a long time ago.

Chris

Yes, Glen it's all how about how the image *feels* with me too. On a side note, the very

best *skinny* format for landscape imaging is Bronica's 35mm wide back, I think it was

24x54mm, perfect in my opion (24x36mm not quite wide enough for me).

Now, I shoot the XPan, nice, but is just not *as nice* as the 54mm wide Bronica frame.

As for 4:3, yes, it just feels right AND as you say crops beautifully to suare OR is great as

is!

I think the difference between 4:3, 2:3 is very akin to that of the Bronica 35mm wide and

XPan frames - "you either get it OR you don't."

All the best,

Chris

Hi Glenn,

One of the biggest gripes of *medium-format film* to digital pro's is the *35mm* aspect

ratio (too skinny for portraits and uprights in general). For me, being an avid MF guy

Olympus really got this bit right and I agree that it's a very pleasing format to work with.

If you look over the (professional) Canon forums you'll find lots of information on this

topic, Canon do listen, recently they offered 4:3 (cropped) focussing screens to their pro's

for just this purpose.

Makes you wonder if (read: when) Canon will offer a 4:3 equiped camera for their editorial/

commercial photographers.

Now, if only Olympus could give us a Canon (FF) sized view-finder, then all in the world

would be good ;-)

Best,

Chris

Mark,

Sorry I cannot help you here, hopefully QG will chime in (I think) this is his area of expertise,

it's not mine mate!

Good luck,

Chris

Mark and QG,

The fixer I mentioned *TF4* is basically odourless too, if that's any help!

Check out Anchell's "the darkroom cookbook" and you'll find a refference to it. I'm no

chemist, sorry ;-)

Yes, agreed about the *stopping development* action of acetic acid, but, as Ilford have

stated, it is not really as important as people make out. They, Iford, used to advise the

use of

a stop bath to *extend* the life of the fixer. Today, I'm not using *hypo* based fixers, so

that

(for me) is also a moot point.

I did want to tell Mark to check out the TF4 fixer < www.photoformulary.com >but as he's

in the UK (I think) that would be a non starter with shipping and all.

You did make me think (QG) it's probably a good idea for Mark to look into *odourless*

chemistry in the Paterson range (they're UK based) and he'd more than likely run into the

same *re-badged formula's* I'm getting in the USA.

I do know *my formula* for odourless sepia toner is EXACTLY the same as he'll find in the

*PhotoSpeed Variable sepia Kit* found in the UK.

Getting back to fixer, the TF4 fixer IS meant to be used *without* a stop, plus it also works

just as well on film. Just another way to streamline your darkroom chemistry AND with the

TF4 staining (after sepia toning) is vastly reduced as are washing times with fiber-based

papers.

This is a little off topic, but I feel Mark could save himself a great deal of wasted effort by

adopting a more up to date work flow with MODERN chemistry.

Chris

Opps, sorry Mark - I meant to say "Just say no to STOP" - just checking to see wether you

where paying attention (I obviously wasn't).

Mark,

The B&W process is as complicated as you want to made it!

I, for one, prefer a simple approach. You're in the UK so sticking with Ilford OR Paterson

film AND chemicals will make learing the ropes VERY straight forward.

All you need is a developer AND fixer, stop is not even recommended anymore by the likes

of Ilford (even though they still sell it). Stop is the one chemical that will really stink up

the house too - so a plus I'd say - just say no to fixer ;-)

I've been processing my film in just about any old developer I can get (stranded in Alaska)

then using JUST plain water INSTEAD of a stop bath (5 minute water bath for me) and then

straight into a Fixer - NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL and I've been at this professionally since

1984. Plus now I'm on a septic system that's one less chemical to worry about

ACCIDENTALLY going down the drain.

Good luck mate, don't forget NOBODY EVER SAID "pitty Cartier Bresson didn't use HP5

instead of HP4" they just said WOW what a great image. That's what B&W's all about -

leave the obsessive behaviour to the guys on the *digital forum*!

Best,

Chris

Hi All,

First, thankyou very much for the information (Akira, Nick, Ulrik, Paul, John & Derek).

I've used the extension tubes for many years but I'm going for a different feel (look). I'm

not concerned with 'sharp', well 150 sharp anyway ;-). I'm after that VERY shallow (eyelash

only) focus, I shoot fast B&W (Rodinal look) film so absolute quality isn't an issue, the

Proxar would be good if it took the edge of the lens!

I suppose I'm trying to get (as close as possible) the look of an 85mm wide open on

35mm, BUT, square and full-frame with the borders printed too. Sharp ISN'T an issue, but

the square 'full-frame' is, I don't want to crop any of the images!

It sounds as if the Proxar #2 would offer a VERY shallow DOF with the Zeiss 150mm wide

open, if so, that would be perfect. The 80mm with a 2X converter (wide open) focusses

close enough for me (just) and has a very nice look but I find the two stop light loss a bit

of a pain to remember every now and again (ok, more often than not;-), even less DOF

would be good however! I just love that 'wide open' look with the milky background.....

I'm just a little leary that the 120mm wide open at F4 would offer to much DOF at it's

closest focus, the background MUST just 'melt away', sort of 'eyes only' look!

Derek, thanks for the link to Theo Keijzers work, great stuff, I enjoy the disciplined

approach of someone who can shoot full-frame!

Regards,

Chris

Hi all,

I've been looking for information on the "Proxar" close-up lens (filters), but as yet, found

little on the Hasselblad site.

My question is two part. What Proxar's where offered by Zeiss AND which would get the

150 down in the same 'close focus' range as the 120mm Macro?

I beleive the 150 is at closest focus 15 by 15 inches AND the 120 macro 10 by 10

inches, so I suppose I'm looking for something to get the 150 (at least) 50% closer.

Many thanks,

Chris