Jump to content

drew bedo

Members
  • Posts

    425
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by drew bedo

  1. Welcome to the LF world. Jump in . . .sure, BUT: The advice to get a camera on loan is a good idea for your first experience in the wild. At any rate, don't go online or out to a camera shop and fill up a back pack with new stuff right off the bat. Go into it at a lower level of financial commitment and see how it works for you. LF is different from other imaging modalities and formats. Many here will tell you to do what they did . . .coming from folks who have don LF for a while, it will all be valid advice, but each will be different. Whatever camera/lens combo you start out with will not be the only gear you ever own. Everyone's style and technique changes over time and your equipment needs will change too. My first outing was a vacation that included two days at the North Rim of The Grand Canyon. I had a pre-anniversary Speed Graphic beater and the lens it shipped with back in 1935 (or just whenever). That, film holders, meter and everything else was packed into a Jan Sport book-bag backpack with a Star version Tiltall tripod swinging out side. I had the leather jacket and soft hat, but I was NOT Ansel Adams! The point is that I got some great shots and got used to the minutia of shooting LF outdoors without maxing-out my Gold card. If the experience hadn't gone well I could walk away without missing a car payment. Still have that camera, but my go-to 4x5 is now a vintage Zone VI with several multi-coated lenses and a CF tripod all packed into a decent bag.
  2. <p>Regardikng films: I agree that in B&W the only current emulsion dating from that era is Kodak Tri-X. For color, aybe a Kodak color negative films.</p> <p>There is a software add-on for Photoshop that is supposed to emulate the spectral response and "look" of now departed films like Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Kodacolor and so on.</p> <p>In B&W I kike the still available Ektascan, a panchromatic medicsl film only avaiklable in 8x10. Chemistry is compatable with Tri-x.</p> <p>Please let us know what you do and share a few images.</p>
  3. <p>Thanks for those clarifications on the availability and cost-effectiveness of instant materials for large format photography. Wish it was a more cost-effective option.</p> <p> </p>
  4. <p>Sounds like a project for NASA/Nat-Geo or DoD.</p>
  5. <p>There was a process available from commercial labe called DuraTrans that presented an enlarged image in a durable plastic substrate for trans illumination. Perhaps that would work.</p>
  6. <p>If there was an "instant-ish" process that produced a positive in-camera existed that was economically viable , then I think Polaroid would still be in business with large format materials. They are not and instant materials for LF (4x5 only) from other sources are hard to find, unreliable and expensive.</p> <p>If the pinhole look is necessary to your creative vision and you don't have the patience for darkroom development, perhaps a pinhole adapter for your DSLR—coupled with a laptop and portable printer— is what you need to look at.</p> <p>I could be wrong, but I do not think that there is an analog based process that will meet your requirements.</p>
  7. <p>Sadly, this day has long been coming. A few years ago the amount of advertising by major companies shrank to just a few, then disappeared. The slippage in issue dates was another sign, My most "recent" issue, received in in May, was dated from the fall of 2015.</p> <p>Hope someone stepps in to fill the nich.</p>
  8. <p>Thanks everyone for that history. I understand the collector's premium on condition and. Setting aside condition (mine is in pretty good shape, but ungraded), it seems that the high-priced examples are said to have that radioactive element. How can this be determined?</p>
  9. <p>-Hello all,<br> Not a regular here on the RF forums so please be gentle.<br> I have inserted a a Leica M-3 with a 50mm lens. I have a good handle on the desirability and value range of the camera body—it is a good every-day shooter, not a collector. However, I do have questions about the lens.<br> The lens: 50mm/f-2.0 Summicron in LTM collapsing mount, S/N1364121. There is a screw-to- bayonet adapter ring on it.<br> I have seen lenses of this specification offered at $200-$350 on auction sites. I have also seen them at well over $1,000 , but don't know quite why they are so high (or desirable).<br> Can anyone help me understand this?</p>
  10. <p>Ok . . .so EVERY Saturday is out . . .but any time you are in town.</p> <p>Cheers</p>
  11. <p>Louis,</p> <p>Professional Camera Repair is a family business near Houston's Galleria shopping mega-mall . its a small store front and they sell used gear as well as fix it up. </p> <p>Every Saturday morning a few of us regulars meet there informally ~9AM for coffee, carbs and camera talk. On the second Sat of each month we have a more formal meeting in the back room (really—its in the back) with some show-and-tell, and sometimes a more formal program. All are welcome to bring an interesting piece or a recient image, drink coffee and share their knowledge.</p> <p> </p>
  12. <p>I am a bit old school, and prefer a simple balck rame and white mat for an exhibition.</p> <p>For an Art Festival, hang some framed prints and bring other prints mountes and matted in plastic sleeves presented in bins.</p>
  13. <p>so my understanding is that the prints will be mounted to a wood substrate with no mat . . .right? If that is the case, then archival consederations are not part of the project, and:<br> UMMM . . .I'd try to keep it as simple as possible and still do a good job of blackening the edge . . .my vote is for the marking pen.</p>
  14. <p><strong>eUse roll film to make a mask.</strong></p> <p><em>I have never done this, so the following is a thought experiment:</em></p> <p>Over-expose B&W roll film ( 35mm or MF) and develop it.<br> Load a sheet of 8x10 or ULF and tape strips of the exposed and developed roll film over it.</p> <p>Compose and shoot as usual.</p> <p>The exposed LF sheet should have a complete image that looks like multiple single shots done witha roll film camera.</p>
  15. <p>For the past 20 years, all my LF lenses/shutters are serviced by Professional Camera Re[pair in Houston.</p> <p>http://professionalcamerarepair.com/</p> <p>DRop by there ~9:30 AM the second Saturday of the month for coffee and talk photography with the Texas Photographic collectors Association. All are welcome. Bring something interesting to "show-and-tell".</p>
  16. <p>I am just speculating on the back of an early morning coffee rush . . . .</p> <p>If all you need is a little front tilt, maybe a solution might be one of the smaller speed graphics—2 1/4 x 3 1/4— and an DIY adapter board to fit the Grafloc back.</p> <p>The camera would mount to the board (body cap?) and the board would fit the grafloc where the GG assembly would go. Parfocal register is not reticle because you have the LCD screen/digi-viewfinder and maybe focus confirmation to work with. 'Course this means that you give up the dedicated lenses.</p> <p>The Speed body will have a bit of front tilt and thee is a way to convert the front standard to increase this movement.</p> <p>************</p> <p>In another cafeen-fuled thought: There used to be conversions of the Canon tilt-shift lens mount.</p> <p> </p>
  17. <p>Everyone: Thanks for the feed-back:</p> <p>I understand the issues involved with sensor size and the trade off in convenience with a zooming fixed lens on a shirt pocket camera and the versilitity of interchanagable lenses.</p> <p>Someone has mentioned something about the limitations (complications?) of Sony;s "E-Mount" kenses —for C-sensor cameras—vs another line of lenses for(I think) full frame cameras. What is the significance of that?</p>
  18. <p>Wow . . .I <em>have</em> been away a long time. This is the discussion thatwas hop ed for.</p> <p>I will continue with large format view cameras as I enjoy the decision making and manipulations of that creative work flow (Ok, enough of that Art Show BS). In plane terms, I like jacking with the camera.</p> <p>In the early 2Ks we had a higher-end Olympus Stylus P&S at 5-8 MP which was pretty good for 2004-07. Liked it as a shirt pocket or purse camera. What is like that now?</p>
  19. <p>, Right on all counts: Sorry about the typo . . .it is in fact, a <em><strong>50mm</strong></em> lens. And I understand about the crop factor. Its vintage 1950s but a sharp, fast glass.</p> <p>So, will the collapsing mount interfere with the sensor? My M-3 body is pretty thin.</p>
  20. <p>Hello all,</p> <p>I am a large format film photographer and have been out of the loop in the digital world for many years . . .so I am clueless on the new stuff.</p> <p>Back in the 200s, or ages ago in digital years, we had an Olympus Stylus pocket camera that we liked. It was higher end in its line at the time with something like 5-8 MP, and consumer features. We liked it because it was really convenient to use, easily fit in pocket or purse, and made high quality images. I have sold several 11x14 prints of a light bulb for $250+ made with that camera.<br> <em><strong> </strong></em><br> <em><strong>What is the current equivalent Olympus offering ?</strong></em></p>
  21. <p>Thanks guys:</p> <p>Well I want to replace our Nikon D-60 for family outings this summer. I saw a review somewhere on the 6300 (and the price!) and then found the 6000 with nearly all that at 1/3rd the cost .</p> <p>Per the OP; I recognize that there are lower cost sources for photo gear—lower than the full service retail camera store where they know me. It is the comparison of features versus cost between the 6300 and the 6000 that is of interest.</p> <p>BTW: I have a 30mm/f2.0 Summicron in collapsing Leica Screw Mount—can that go on the front somehow? </p> <p>Usage? Initially just family snaps in the Rockies this June. later on maybe a conversion ring or two for Nikon lenses and maybe even to mount the body on a Celestron C-90 spotting scope. </p>
  22. <p>I am a large format film guy and haven't followed the digital revolution with any serious passion for years . . .so need a bit of catching-up.</p> <p>Looking at the Sony a6000 and the a6200: Is the a6200 so much advanced that I should shell out THREE TIMES as much as the a6000 (!500-$600/!$1300-$1500)? Not really interested in the 4x video (whatever that is).</p> <p>The numbers are relative examples at over-the-counter retail; of course lower prices may be found online and via gre market etc.</p> <p> </p>
  23. <p>A nice conversation covering both pros and cons. Thanks everyone. </p> <p>I am not moving forward with this vigorously at this time, but not giving it up altogether either. Waiting to get my website re-built to promote photography and will link to VIDA and Artsy Home. Maybe I'll get my daughter-I'm-law to put up something on Pintrest (whatever that is).</p> <p>Right now I am struggling with putting together a website using Weebly.</p>
  24. <p><strong>kODAK Film X-OMAT Duplicating 8" X 10" </strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> <strong>Anyone ever use any of this film? In days past I used a Kodak film called "Ektascan" That was used in Ultrasound and Nuclear medicine to capture images off a CRT. It was processed in an automatic processor and the chemistry was compatible eith Tri-X. The hospital photographers used to just run 35mm and 220 rolls of Tri-x right through behind our big films without any problems. The Processor and chemistry were labeled with this Kodak "X-Omat" brand.</strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> <strong>I loaded 8x10 sheets in standard holders and rated it at 200. Ran it through the processor at work or took it to a lab for standard processing as Tri-X. Worked really well, back them.</strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> <strong>So now I have found a listing on E-Bay with this same brand, Kodak X-Omat, and wondered if it can be made to work for LF imaging. </strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> <strong>anyone have any experience?</strong></p>
×
×
  • Create New...