joel_collins

Chris,

 

I use JW Photo Labs frequently and exclusively. They do a great job with all of my work. I regularly take 35mm, 6x7, and 4x5 to them and they are quick and high quality. Admittedly, I have never asked for 6x7 to 6x7 dupes, but I have had them create 6x7 to 35mm dupes. If the guy at the front counter didn't know whay you were talking about, he must be new or a temp. Next time you go in, ask to speak to "Bubba." He's the man when it comes to lab work.

 

Welcome to the area.

 

Joel Collins

http://www.mindspring.com/~jwc3

Many of the photos on my web page were made with the P67. My web address is: http://www.mindspring.com/~jwc3 (All of the images in

the Portrait and Architecture sections were done on the P67.)

I use Agfa APX 100 sheet film and love it. I started using it in 120

rolls, and it's now the only B&W film I use, regardless of format.

I use the P67 and 135mm lens hand held in the studio with the flash synch speed of 1/30 with great resutls. All of the images in the portrait section of my web page were shot this way ( http://www.mindspring.com/~jwc3 ). The size, weight, and slow synch speed don't bother me. I think the biggest problem with the P67 for fashion is not having interchangable backs to do polariod test shots -- you have to buy another body and devote it to poloroid (more $$, weight, and bulk).

Carl,

 

Hope this isn't too late, but I use the P67 in the studio hand-held with no problems. My lighting is Speedotron Brown Line 1204. I leave the modeling lights on and never have ghosting. For examples of my portraits, see: http://www.mindspring.com/~jwc3/portraits.htm

I use the 135mm Macro for portraits all the time. Check out my web page for examples of the resutls: http://www.mindspring.com/~jwc3/portraits.htm All of these images were taken with the 135mmm. If you get really close (as in part of the face), you will see some distortion. Other than that, it's a great lens for portraits.

I don't have the P67II, but I do use the P67. In my experience, you can hand-hold the P67 in many situations with great resutls. If my shutter speed is 1/focal length of the lens (e.g., 1/125 with the 135mm lens) or higher then I can hand hold with no problems. (From what I can tell, a lot of the vibration is the mirror returning after the film is exposed.)

 

In the studio, the flash synch speed is 1/30, but I still hand hold the camera and get great resutls with the 135mmm lens. The key to this is making sure there is no strong light other than the studio strobes (I leave the modeling lights on the whole time). Then the exposure time is the strobe "pop" time, which is very fast. For examples of my hand-held studio work with the P67 and 135mm, go to http://www.mindspring.com/~jwc3/portraits.htm All of the shots on that page were hand held and the prints are tack sharp.

 

I was watching the E Network this weekend and there was a 1 hour show about a fashion shoot in Guatemala. Not sure who the photographer was (young, muscular, Italian -- I think it was Sante D'Orazio), but he was using the P67II hand-held the entire time. He had several camera bodies and had assistants changing the film in the other bodies while he used one of them. When he was done with a roll, he would take the lens off the body, grab a new body, reattach the lens, and keep going. He did it in about 10 seconds. He also had a body with a Polaroid back for test shots.

 

So, if you get the P67 (or P67II) hand-hold with confidence -- it's a great camera.

Too bad the photos don't live-up to the hype of the web page. The horizon is crooked in almost every shot in which it's visible.

I saw a few negative comments above on Fuji Provia 100 F, so I thought

I should voice my support of the film. It has a more neutral color

balance than Velvia, and thus is much more suited to product shots and

portraits than Velvia. Actually, I've never used it for portraits,

just product shots, but you definately don't want to use Velvia for

protraits -- too much color brings out the imperfections in skin. For

protraits, I usually shoot Fuji NPS 160 in 120 size with my Pentax 67.

It also has a neutral color balance and does well with flesh tones.

NPS is also good for architectural interiors because it is very

tollerant of mixed light sources (daylight, tungsten, etc.)

Sean,

 

Rather than adding a 1.4X to your 165mm lens, why not just add an extension tube? This will dramatically increase your close focusing depth, and will cost a lot less than a 1.4X converter. Just remeber, the 1.4X converter will also convert your f-stop by 1.4X, so your 165mm f2.8 becomes a 230mm f4.

 

Another issue: Does anyone know what a teleconverter does to the close focus distance of a lens? It might increases it by 1.4X, which is counter to your original desire of improving the close focusing distance of the 165mm lens.

 

As for the 135mm lens, I use it for portraits, but I don't do full face shots with it -- it's slightly too wide for that and slight distortion occurs. It's great for "head and shoulders" shots.

 

Joel

I spoke to a pro once from NYC that had a 11x14 camera and was using

paper as the film (I guess 11x14 film is hard to find). Seems like he

said he would later remove as much of the paper backing as possible

and then make contact sheets. It all seemed weird to me, but I was

too focused on his 4x5 equipment to ask for more info on the

technique.

I also recommend that you try Agfa APX 100. It's my favorite B&W

film.

Paul, do you mean the UMAX Astra 2200, rather than the 2000? Also,

what files sizes do you get when you scan a 4x5 slide at full

resolution?

Thanks for that perspective, Dave... (And, of course, thanks to all

the others that posted an answer.)

I recently bought a Sinar F1 and a Nikon 210mm/5.6 lens. I realize that the Nikon lens is not a macro, but how close can I focus it before I exceed its limits and enter the macro realm? I'd like to do table-top photography of items that are 5-10 inches in size (for example, a computer mouse). Thanks for your help.

You asked: "What's the equivalent focal length when 210mm lens used

with a 6x7 rollfilm back?"

 

<p>

 

A 210mm lens is always a 210mm lens regardless of the film size

used. The only thing that will change is the relationship between

the focal length of the lens and the film size. So, for example, a

100mm lens is telephoto on a small format camera, normal on a 6x7

camera, and wide angle on a large format camera -- but it's still a

100mm lens. (I know, I'm ignoring the differnt coverages required

for each of these formats -- there's probably not one lens that can

really be used on all three formats.) So, I think the right way to

ask your questions is "Is a 210mm lens on a 6x7 camera good for

portraits?" The answer to that question is yes. I use a 135mm on my

Pentax 67 for "head and shoulders" portraits with great success. A

210mm lens sould work well. Good luck!

Here's a much more recent example of LF price increases. The Sinar F1

was $1850 two years ago at B&H. It's now $2311. That's a 25%

increase ($461) in two years.

I saw a used Fatif 4x5 camera in the local photo shop the other day. They're made in Italy. Anyone have one of these? They do have a web page (http://www.fatif.com) with a few photos of their products, but not much detail. If you do have one, what is the shortest lens that you can use? It seemed that the big supports for the standards hit the big support for the rail before you get close enough for a wide angle like a 90mm. Also, is it easy to find accessories like lens boards, bag bellows, etc? Is there a dealer in the US? Thanks for the info.

I have used light from below in many portrait photos. My images have

been most successful when the lower light is filling-in the shadows

created by the main light that is above the subject. Take a look at

this photo (http://www.mindspring.com/~jwc3/kathrin1.JPG) to see what

I mean. Look at the reflection in her eyes -- you can see the light

from below. A lot of light from below can look more intimate, as if

you're having a candle-lit dinner with the person in the photo. If

I'm not using a light below, I usually use a reflector to fill-in the

shadows.

I use a small-ish light box with louvers to keep light off of the background or other areas. I also have a few grids that can be inserted into the reflectors on the lights to narrow the light. Another thing that works well is just placing a big piece of black poster board between the light and the subject such that the poster board blocks the part of the light that you don't want. I think the pros call this a GOBO because it GOes BOtween the light and the subject.

Oops, guess I goofed that HTML in the above response. Sorry, gang.

I'll answer a few question about this photo: <p>The softbox is 24x32

inches -- I think the size is "medium." The softbox was on a boom and

I was sitting on the floor under the softbox, but the softbox was not

high above. It was just high enough to prevent the catch light from

covering the pupil of the eye. The background paper is medium grey --

it appears black because I prevented it from being lit by using

louvers on the softbox. <p>As for the image bing too "cute" -- it was

really hard to pick photos from this series because this is my son. I

guess I'm drawn to the cute ones. I have <a

href="http://www.mindspring.com/~jwc3/deane16.jpg">another photo</a>

on my web page that is probably less cute. Let me know what you

think. <p>And, yes, Agfa APX is a great film. It's the only B&W film

I use. APX 25 in 6x7 is a killer for landscapes. I can't print big

enough in my darkroom to see grain.<p>Thanks for you comments!

I use the <a

href="http://www.pentax.com/accessory.jhtml?accessoryType=LUPES">Penta

x 5.5X loupe</A>. It's a monster, covering about 70% of a 6x7 image.

Seems like it costs about $80, less than half of the price for the

Schneider and Rodenstock loupes. Check it out.

I use the 135mm for nature and portrait shots with great success. I

used it to shoot a semi-distant <a

href="http://www.mindspring.com/~jwc3/jfb_falls.htm">waterfall</A> and

the results were spectacular. (The image on my web page doesn't do

the original transparancy justice.) The 135mm lens doesn't focus

close enough for true nature photography -- for that I would recommend

using the extension tubes, too. I have a photo of <a

href="http://www.mindspring.com/~jwc3/treebark.htm">tree

bark</A> shot at the lens' closest focus distance. This one I have

printed 16x20 and framed in my house. Vistors always stop and stare.

That cibachrome print looks almost 3D. Good luck with your decision

on this lens!

Any comments or suggestions are appreciated: <p>

<IMG SRC="http://www.mindspring.com/~jwc3/deane15.jpg" WIDTH="285"

HEIGHT="360"> <P>

Technical info: Pentax 67 with 135mm lens, Speedotron Brownline M11 Head in Photoflex softbox, Agfa APX 100 film, printed on Ilford Multigrade IV paper.