keith_lubow

Upgrade path: Get what you can afford. When it significantly restricts you, get what else you can afford. In the meantime, become a better photographer. It's as simple as that.

First, identify what you don't like about what you currently have. Don't think about how much you want something else...try to focus on how you think your needs are not being met by your current kit.

I would say your kit's largest weakness is that your only shorter lenses are slow. I would first address this issue by purchasing something that should be in our bag anyhow: a fast standard lens. See how that helps you, then go from there. You can start with the 50 1.8 to do it on the cheap ad just get a feel for fixed-length lenses, or go straight for the 1.4, which I would do, since I feel that everyone should have a 1.4 lens in their kit to start.

You might discover that the 50 gives you enough satisfaction to cure your G.A.S. If not, at least it gives you a good and useful reference point for future gear purchases.

Keith

You can't go wrong by starting with a 50mm and going from there. Spring for the 1.4 version instead of the 1.8 version, IMO. If you need faster, there is the 1.2 as well.

My next would be the 35mm f/2 for a moderate wide. Maybe a 28 if the 35 is not wide enough for your taste.

For long, 100mm macro first, for it's versatility. Next, probably the 135mm 2.8. I also love the 85mm 1.8, but not really in studio. You might, though.

Keith

You probably ended up metering off of a highlight, since you probably couldn't get a reading off of anything else. When you do this, and go with what the meter tells you, you end up with a pic that is over all underexposed.

Also, if you use this film with the intent of placing shadow detail at a certain negative density (which you and most people probably do not, due to the situations in which it is usually shot), you would probably want to consider it an 800 film to start. Read the data sheets for both Ilford and Kodak 3200 films and you will see that they are actually rated as ISO 1000 films. With these films, the 3200 is a usable EI based solely on how high you can push the highlights.

Your light meter may be inaccurate as well.

If your shots are really worth the trouble, and there is anything there worth trying to salvage, I would start with the intensifier from Photographer's Formulary. Most pro photo shops will have this exact product in stock. If that doesn't work, some strong selenium toner (1:2 or 1:3) will push up your highlights about one paper grade, assuming they are actually highlights. Then, you can print the highlights up and develop the shadows down using Selectol-Soft. Then you can selenium tone the print to darken the darks.

Better have some darned good shots before you do all that.

Keith

Look for some second hand Portra 100T. Most of it should still be fairly fresh.

For a transparency, Fuji 64T is the way to go. This is my favorite color film by far.

Keith

Shoot with a certain shutter speed in mind (a fast one), and adjust everything else around it. Underexpose if you have to...just don't give up that shutter speed.

I can't believe you have bought $6,000 worth of kit and have to ask this question.

Keith

When my subscription expired, my total number of photos was already capped. I had uploaded about 120 while I was a subscriber. However, once the subscription expired, the unlimited pix wore off. When I tried to upload, they said I couldn't because I had not given enough ratings/critiques. I just cleared everything. I agree that small portfolios would be a great move. Maybe five 800 pix. wide 15-pic portfolios without a subscription. 75 medium rez pix seems reasonable. People dumping their images here to pull onto other Websites does not seem reasonable. If there was some way to prevent the pix from being served, or delete profiles/portfolios that haven't been touched in a year....even better.

If it makes a difference, I have no attachment to any of my pix or posts. Take them down if it helps.

Keith

This is the way I do it:

1. Film speed test. To get this, I shoot a shot of an out of focus grey card in open shade filling the frame while focused on infinity. I make a blank shot to start (lens cap on). Using box speed for all of the following, then I make an exposure at a zone V placement. Then, always using apertures, not shutter speeds for the following, I make a zone 0 placement. Then zone 1/3. Then zone 2/3. Then zone I. Then zone I-1/3. Then zone I-2/3. Then zone II. Then, on the rare chance that my film ends up being rated exactly the same as box speed, I also expose a shot at zone VIII to give me a jump on my next test: normal development. Then with the last two shots, just shoot whatever. I develop my film exactly the way I will always develop my film. Then I take the film to a *full-service professional* lab and ask them politely to use their black and white densitometer for about five minutes. I first record the density of the blank frame (film base plus fog density). Then I look for the bracketed shot that is the closest to 0.10 MORE than the blank frame. Whichever shot that is, however many 1/3 stops it is away from your zone I placement is how many 1/3 film speeds you change the EI of your film. For instance, if you got your 0.10 over base+fog density on the zone 1/3 exposure, you would rate your film at 160 whenever you use it in that camera. This is probably all the testing most people will do, if even that, and I think it is all you are asking for. Nevertheless, I'll go on.

2. Test for normal contrast development. With this test, I rate the film as indicated by my last test, and shoot an IN-FOCUS textured material such as terry cloth in open shade, with the first four shots being zone 0 (lens cap on), zone III, zone V, and zone VIII placements. I do not repeat the exposures and snip to test, as the developer would not wear out as quickly as in real-world developing of a whole roll. So, I finish off the roll on whatever. I then develop exactly like I did for the first test, and exactly like I will for all eternity. Print onto the grade of paper that you want to call "normal", or with VC, the filter that you want to call "normal". Traditionally, this is a grade 2. I personally call grade 3 my normal paper, as I like to have one grade below and one grade above normal available. Since I use graded paper for zone system work, all I have is grades 2 - 4 nowadays, so I like my "normal" to be right in the middle. Anyhow, I make a standard-sized enlargement of the zone III negative (using a small test strip of course; no need to print a whole sheet). Yes; an enlargement, as you want to replicate actual printing conditions, which you don't get with a contact print. I print the zone III neg. until the "detail" clearly disappears into "texture". Then I make a series of one-second increments getting lighter and lighter until it is about a zone IV. I develop them all at once in the same tray. Then I finish the process, dry them thoroughly and mark the exposure times on the back. Whichever exposure is the darkest one that still shows "detail" (not just "texture"), use that same exposure to make a test from the zone VIII negative. Bracket again. Process, dry, label. Look for the lightest one that still shows "detail" (not just "texture"). If it is the one that had the same exposure as your zone III "detail", your normal development time is perfect for that paper. If it took more exposure to get the zone VIII detail to match the zone III detail, you should reduce your development time. If it took less exposure to get it, you should increase your development time. And then do THE WHOLE THING AGAIN until the printing test ends up perfect! YAY!

3. Pluses and minuses. Basically, you are doing what you did above: shooting and developing trying for the last detail on a zone VIII to match the last detail on a zone III when you print. However, this time, you place tones above (for minus tests) or below (for plus tests) zone VIII, and test for the development that makes them a zone VIII. Pretty self explanatory. Just takes a lot of time and a lot of patience.

4. Test for the effects of high-strength selenium toning of your negs. This is often a better option than plus development, especially with small format, as it does not increase grain, but has a similar effect as a +1 development. I always assume that one stop of plus development will come from the selenium. Therefore if I want an N+1, I will just develop to N and then tone. If I want an N+2, I actually develop to N+1 and then tone. If I want an N+3, which is very difficult to achieve, I develop to N+2 and then tone and I get the effect of N+3 no problem.

It is all much easier with sheet film, though more expensive.

Keith

Michael,

D3 is a 1D competitor more than it is a 1Ds competitor. It falls in between the two, but it is closer to a 1D due to its speed, low light performance, and *relatively* low resolution. (It has high resolution by my standards, however.) Of course the 1Ds Mk. III has better image quality. It is a better-featured camera that is $3,000 more.

A lot of working professionals who have really wanted to shoot Nikon in the digital age were waiting for this. Some of them have switched based on this body alone. Others are so far into lenses that they will not. Robert Hanashiro is one of those who has switched. He started on film Nikons, like 95% of pro shooters did in the film years, and had to leave them behind in the transition to digital, because that's what his employers started buying. As soon as Nikon came out with a film-sized sensor in a sports body, he got what he wanted. My friend from Getty has always wanted to shoot Nikon, but had to shoot Canon for work. Now she has gone to the AP instead, and will be getting a personal D3, because she claims it destroys both Canon Mk. IIIs.

So, the implication is simply that Canon will now actually have to fight to be competitive, instead of it just being a given. MANY of the people who have been using their stuff all these years because they had to (based on contracts with wire services and newspapers) now have a decent argument as to why they shouldn't have to. Many Canon shooters these past ten years are actually Nikon lovers at heart with no loyalty whatsoever to Canon. Many of these people also have little investment in gear (because all their gear is provided to them by their employer), so switching is not a big loss for them. Wire services are now taking steps to support Nikon shooters as well as Canon. It's all good again...no more de facto monopoly.

Keith

Use a faster shutter speed...

Keith

Fine art could be anything. There is no such thing as a fine art lens, unless of course you are talking about the Schneider-Kreuznach Fine Art series of monster lenses for ULF.

Just pick the lens with the angle of view that you like. Since you have a 24-70, you have an idea of what all those lengths are like.

If you want longer, get something like 85, 100, 135, or 200. Or just a 70-200. f/4 would be the lightest, f/2.8 would give you the best handholdability. 70-300 IS would be a decent option for a long zoom since you will be .

If you want wider, get something like the 14 (super dooper rarely usable wide) or the 20 (starting to get very wide), or the 16-35 or 17-40 zoom (very wide through moderately wide zooms). All of these are expensive except the 20.

Keith

Ron,

It's a trick that mostly sees use in motion pix. It is high contrast, low saturation and very faded looking. Very muddy overall, but with bright highlights. Kind of "otherworldly", you might say.

Sometimes it is combined with a partial b/w developing step to give more control over the process.

Think of the beach landing in the movie "Saving Private Ryan". That is probably the most famous example.

Keith

Have considered one of these cameras a couple of times. Want to try it first and hear more about it first. Thanks for posting your review.

Personally, I think an M2 is more my camera. But I do want to have at least ONE new camera in my life...my closest is a Canon 10D, and I got that used.

Keith

Maybe that's why Baret is trying so hard to get Getty to buy the place. I guess the apple has fallen quite far from the tree?

But please, give us the details.

Keith

Comparing those two bodies, the Nikon is the better-featured camera.

Comparing Nikon to Canon, you won't find much difference the prints you get, or in the fundamental specifications. Similarly featured models have similar prices. Canon and Nikon models right now fall in between each other in price and features, but it is as simple as this: you get what you pay for. If a camera costs more, it's because it has more useful features. If it costs less, it's because it has fewer. Go into a store and try them or rent them. Do not go in with money to blow, as the salesperson will try to talk you into his or her personal favorite, or the one who he or she has been pressured to push that month. In the end, you should just pick the brand that has:

1. The lens system you like best.

2. The bodies that you find most comfortable and easy to control.

3. The flash system you like best.

Unfortunately for me, number one goes to Canon and the other two go to Nikon.

NOTICE I did not say to pick a brand based on a certain model of camera body. If you stick with photography for a long time, you will own many bodies throughout your life. There will always be something new and fangled to pull you one way or the other. Invest in a total long-term system, not just one camera that catches your fancy right now.

Keith

Similar conditions just botched a 16-sheet shoot for me. Was doing a shoot for a 12-print cyclorama. Since I use DB, my top shutter speed was '60... Used 400NC, f/22 at a 60th. Wind would not allow proper use of a dark cloth so I had to focus as best as I could. Was up on a roof in the desert. I loved the way the wind was blowing the creosote scrub bushes. Had made 11 shots with some backups. For 12th shot, the wind picked up my Sinar and Bogen 3051. It was up in the air on one leg only about to fall, but luckily I caught it. Tried to put it back where it should have been. I think I got close, but in the end it didn't matter because focus was SLIGHTLY off anyhow.

A heavy, heavy sand bag hung from a hook on the center column, an assistant, a "normal" shutter, a pop-up ground glass shade (like Graflex) or bellows, and most of all, checking focus a little more closely would have helped. It is not entirely botched, just a tiny bit soft.

Keith

Keith

Have not tried it, nor would I think it would be very good quality. Small format lenses usually destroy large format for resolution at a given magnification. Might be great for a softer, lower resolution look, which can be very appealing.

Keith

I forgot to mention this, because I figured it was obvious, but you can just mask your ground glass with a piece of black 8x10 construction paper with a 5-1/2 by 9-3/4 inch rectangle cut in it.

Keith

Cropping a piece of 8x10 film to 5-1/2 by 9-3/4 inches won't result in that much waste; only 1-1/4 inches on each top and bottom.

Good to have anyhow in case you decide that one or a couple of individual images might benefit from a sliver more on top or bottom.

Also, good to have to grab a hold of the film! 8x10 film is very easy to damage, and since the damage often occurs near the edges, it is often advised to shoot a bit "loosely" anyhow; to give yourself some "wiggle" room and to help contain any damage to the edges.

This also opens up several short (wide-angle) lens opportunities that are not quite workable on full frame 8x10.

Finally, the cost of acquiring and shooting 8x10, which is high, is going to be NOTHING compared to having a camera custom built, holders custom built. You will have to buy 8x10 film anyhow, and then cut it down to size.

So, in short, 8x10 is the way to go, economically and otherwise.

Good luck. Let us know if you have any more questions.

I have a question: are you doing your work in black and white or color?

Keith

They are both large format camera lenses.

The first is a Schneider-Kreuznach (that's the brand) Angulon (that's the model) 90mm (that's the focal length) f/6.8 (that's the maximum aperture. The numbers must be a serial number, and if you are so inclined you can probably get very close to the production date with that. I don't have a list, but I'm sure someone here on on the Internet does.

The lens is mounted on a Graflex press lensboard with the optional solenoid. It has the original box and appears to be in like new condition.

The solenoid allows the use of M-synch flashbulbs (single use bulbs no longer made) triggered via cable from a flashgun, even though your lens has an X-sych shutter that is made for electronic flash (reusable flash unit like most flashes today). Without the solenoid, the flash of the bulb and the opening of the lens would not match except at the slower shutter speeds. The solenoid already mounted on a lensboard is definitely a preferable way to buy the lens, but doesn't actually add much monetary value to the item. Your value in this item comes mainly from its great condition. I would not be surprised if it was purchased by someone more interested in collecting it than actually using it. I know it would look great on my near mint Speed Graphic, although the vintages do not match. (I actually do use the camera, though.)

The second lens is...well it says right on the front. A Schneider-Kreuznach Comparon 135mm f/4.5. (To figure it out, refer to the notes I made in parentheses regarding the other lens.) The lens board is likely military or surplus, due to its color.

What you can't figure out without recognizing the model name is that this is actually an enlarging lens designed to go on an enlarger and project an image through the back side, as opposed to taking one through the front, like your standard camera lens.

However, these are also dual purpose lenses, and can be used on cameras for many things. It is most likely that this lens was used to make copies of documents, photographs, drawings, etc. Enlarging/copy lenses are optimized for close-focus work and minimal distortion rather than farther focusing distances, resolution and sharpness like a regular camera lens.

It is also possible that the lens was used with a special back that converted the camera into the enlarger, although there would be no need for a shutter if this was the case.

I am interested in the 90. If you put it up on Ebay, let me know first.

Keith

I do not know of the Fuji back. I do have the Polaroid, though, and it works on my Sinar.

<P>

If this Fuji back is something you are considering purchasing, does it look like one side of a 4x5 film holder? In other words, does it have the ridge that runs the width of the holder and "locks" into the matching slot in a Graflok back? Ask for the dimensions. They should be the same as (or close to) those of a 4x5 film holder.

<P>

Well, what do you know. I just took a quick look and found this:

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://www.changecamera.co.kr/web/product/big/changecamera_108.jpg">

<P>

It looks like it is the Fuji equivalent of the Polaroid 405.

<P>

Keith

You have to tell your scanner what to call white and what to call black by adjusting the histogram to fit inside the left and right sliding vertical bars. When you scanned, all of the negative areas that were past a certain density were called white by the scanner. This is called "clipping". You set what this white point is by looking at the histogram before you scan and making adjustments as necessary.

Keith

It's all in the lighting...and then in the printing.

Watch those movies again. Look at the lighting. Of course it is all continuous tungsten light, as it is a moving picture, but you can replicate that with a flash if you know what you are doing.

Softboxes, however, it probably NOT the way to do it.

Also, remember that small film by a still photographer's standards (35mm) was used, and it was blown up to the size of a wall when projected. This look is not about detail and sharpness.

Try a bounced light instead of your softboxes. Where you put the lights is very subjective, depending on the mood you want. But I would not use softboxes (for the third time). Mole-Richardsons are usually shot straight on or bounced with their Soflites. Of course there are a million modifiers you can use, but these are the most common.

Keith

All black and white films can be used (except the ones that use process C-41).

Generally, it is recommended to use high-contrast films because some contrast is lost during bleaching and reexposure.

However, at DR5.com, they have tried all sorts of films, and have a little info on each one. Sometimes you need to rerate the film for best results.

Agfa Scala was only a reversal film in that it was a high-contrast black and white film. There is absolutely no need to spend a bunch of money on it, because Ilford Pan F, FP4, Delta 100, Kodak Plus-X and T-Max 100, plus any other low-medium-speed black and white film, is comparable.

keith

This is not an economic argument for me, and I don't get why it has to come to this. If all things were sensibly based on economic arguments, most of us would be doing most of our driving in Gems or on motorbikes, not driving Cadillacs and SUVs to get our groceries.

The economic argument is a moot point IMO. I think this is an issue of how you want to do your printing more than anything. I like both, and see advantages of both, so I shoot both, and will do so until film totally dies. They are both just tools in our bags and should not be at odds with each other.

Personally, I shoot film because I ENJOY printing and other darkroom work, and have never been unable to get exactly what I want while keeping things analog (barring major defects in negs which are great candidates for repair in Photoshop). In fact, I find it easier than digital, and about ten times more fun. Then again, I am not a P-mode, drugstore kind of guy. In that case, there would be no point in film, IMHO. If I stunk at printing, processing, etc., then there would also be no point in using film. I do not enjoy computer work to achieve a similar (not the same) end. It's as simple as that.

I love digital when I am expected to deliver pix to someone else, and there is no "artistry" or fun required. I love it when I am in a rush. It's also nice for traveling. It kicks ass for journalism. That's about it, though, for me. I have not crunched the numbers, because I would never even consider giving up one or the other, but to me it seems more expensive than using 35mm film, and more time intensive. The archival issue is also moot to me, because you can back up endlessly, buy space at a server company/"lightbox", not to mention perhaps the best way: making quality hard copy prints and actual silver copies on film just in case. This IS expensive, but good archiving always has been.

In short...who cares. Use what you like.

Keith