tom_may

Who was teaching this workshop? What are their credentials?

 

Here are two links to portraits by Steiglitz and Cameron showing classic selective focus portraits taken in 1864/65 and 1919. I'll bet with any minor amount of work you could find hundreds from all the other greats.

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/stieglitz/stieglitz_paul_strand.html

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/C/cameron/cameron_julia_jackson_1864.html

 

History of photography may not strictly fall under "philosophy of photography", but where else would you post it? I'm fine taking a dash of history in my philosophy cocktail.

Thanks to all of you for your input, you gave me good advice. I bought the graphire2 and I'm very pleased with it. I thought I'd need a lot bigger tablet, but you guys were right, it's just fine. Having a great time with it in PS - don't know how I got by without it now. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Seems I'm spending more on computer equipment than photo equipment

lately. Anyway, I'm considering getting a graphics tablet: my only

serious use will be Photoshop. The Wacom are the obvious choice, but

the larger tablets are fairly expensive. I was looking at the Aiptek

Hyperpen 1200, at $150, a 9"x12" tablet and a resolution of 3048lpi

and 512 levels, accuracy +-.42mm, on paper it looks as good or better

than the almost $500 equivalent sized wacom (2540 lpi but 1024

levels, accuracy +-.01"). The other thing might be to get a smaller

wacom (little less res/levels), they seem to have some good plug in's

for use in Photoshop. Anyone using these tablets or others can

reccomend it?

Scott,

Welcome - I love my RZ, I do a lot of hiking around with it and have no issues with the weight (well, maybe at times after a long hike). Anyway, to your question, I do landscapes only so can only speak to that, but wouldn't be without my 50mm lens. If your limiting to two lenses and already have the 110, I'd add the 50. This lens is great for getting those shots with a dramatic depth perspective: someting of interest in the foreground, receding to infinity. The 65 is close and would do just as well. These are not so great for portraits though, so I guess you'll have to make some choices.

 

For macros you might consider the extension tubes - used they aren't too expensive. I second the extra back and prism reccomendations (even more weight). Also second the lens hood, though you can get by with the standard hoods for each lens if you want. Forget the y cable, just use two cable releases.

Rory,

 

Direct answer to your 'can you see the polarization'; I'm mostly into landscapes and wildlife: I sometimes see shots that look unaturally dramatic and wonder if it's: 1) polarizer, 2)supersaturated films with heavy handed printing/reproduction 3)heavy handed contrast/saturation in Photoshop 4)just really dramatic natural lighting or 4) combination of some of those. Sometimes I can guess the cause, but have no idea if I'm really right or not. Mostly I don't care if I don't like the image. Sometimes it's ok to me, dramatic or unrealistic isn't always bad.

 

Obviously, It's easy to see a photographer that overuses colored filters (I saw a published photo book recently where every shot was heavy magenta - 'course nowdays that could be photoshop adjustment vs. in camera - but same result).

 

Not as directly and a tiny bit off subject:

However, I feel a lot like Jose, lately. Particularly when I look back at some of my Velvia shots with heavy polarizer, nowdays I tend to de-saturate/de-contrast those a lot when I print them. I don't polarize quite as much as I did, and I tend to digitally de-saturate more. I still like some dramatic shots, but it's easy to overdo.

 

It seems we're seeing the same kind of trend toward a bit less contrasty/saturated shots with other phtographers, though I may be projecting.

 

Still and all, I'll never leave my pola at home. I shoot the Everglades, and I have no idea if my experience in any way relates to Jordan desert shots(not much desert in Florida). Still, at times I like to bring out the drama of the billowing Florida clouds, more in keeping with their real life imapact. By blocking the glare from the foliage the pola can also bring out the golden colors of the unique Everglades grasses and palms and the green mangroves-more in line with how they really look in that golden sunset glow. Also, without the pola at times the water can look dirtier than it really is). I don't use it as much as I used to, but it's still one of the few filters I do use at times (10% maybe?).

 

Also, it may just be me, but I think a shot with the pola (if need be, toned down a touch in PS) seems to look a bit better than a shot made a bit more dramatic later with selective contrasts or multiply, etc. in PS. Maybe that's just my own working methods.

ranier,

 

Sounds fascination. I have the Pola ss120, and would love to try this. What kind of 'oil' do you use? Where do you get it? How about the chrome cleaner to clean off the oil? Any special technique with the oil? Should I be looking up scanner oiling in the archives (probably yes)?

 

Thanks for sharing the info.

Spud,

Sorry, I have nothing to help with your problem; just had to say your name caught my attention, looked up your photonet profile - it was hilarious, and you website is outrageous. To those of you checking in, you need to see his stuff, it will brighten your day. (will spud ever make it to Idaho?) Good luck with the problem.

Folks,

 

Sorry I left out several important parts. To answer your questions: yes it is the SW (as some of you figured out, because of the coverage), I'm viewing on gg without fresnel, and I'm talking about use of it without hood, filter or camera movements.

 

Gary, intersting that the coverage at f/8 is 154mm - I hadn't seen that. Jason, intersting thought about percentage of light lost. What you're saying is that the light falloff will be equal to the aperature covered. Eugene, I've heard that it's a wonderful lens which is why I bought it, I'm looking forward to using it (if the wind will ever die down).

 

Looks like what you guys are telling me is that there will indeed be some falloff at large aperature (probably not right to call it vignetting, just falloff, right?). Again, I don't know that I'll ever shoot wide open, but I'll have to try it just for goofs.

 

Thanks to all for the info, and to anyone else that has something to add.

Just got a new lens, shortest in my bag: Nikon 90mm f/8 (for 4x5).

When I look through the ground glass cut corners - focused at

anything reasonable for landscape work - I see the dreaded football

at any aperture greater than f/16.

 

Not that I'll often (if ever) use the lens wide open, but if I want

to is it going to vignette? Funny thing is that the corners of the

glass look fine, doesn't seem to be any fall off, though I know

better than to think that means all that much. However, the image

circle should be more than enough to fully cover; it has a 235mm

image circle at f/22 - does it drop off that much open one or two

stops?

 

I know, I know: "try some film" - I will but I just hate to waste too

much money and effort right now, and knowing the vast knowledge of

our wise and experienced community I thought I'd get some advice.

Incidentally, This is one of the few times I couldn't find the answer

to my exact question in the archives, man we have a great knowledge

base in PN, don't we?

 

Thanks in advance for your kind attention.

I frequent the Everglades for my photograpy. After seeing what the tourists do to the aligators, I strongly object to any feeding of wildlife. Why are we different than the jerk who throws a chicken leg to the aligator so that he can get a snapshot of it opening it's mouth? The 'gators associate humans with food, they become aggresive, they eat a pet dog (seen it happen several times myself - not in the park but...), the wildlife officers have to catch it and tote it away. I think they should tote the humans away who feed them. Works the same with Bears out west.

 

Are birds different? or Deer? Maybe, certainly back yard feeding stations are a bit different. Maybe a feeding station by a blind (no association with the humans, I guess). I'll leave those discussions to others.

 

Just another thing though, I have a friend who has a house where a 'pet' Great White Heron visits. The Heron wanders into the house for a handout about 9:00am, then on to the neighbor's house, and so on, though his rounds. They all feed him and bring him in. Maybe it doesn't harm him, I don't know, but it sure is pathetic if you love the sight of the elegant Heron posed at the water, or slowly winging through the 'glades.

 

I'm just again it in general.

Hard to resist adding my feelings to the kind of fellowship you all show in this post, and in the discussions during the entire year. The experience and wisdom from all of you have guided me through many purchases and many attempts to figure it out and get it right. My photography is better due to those of you who have contributed and those of you who asked questions I didn't know I needed to ask. Maybe more importantly, you add to the good side of the life experiences ledger.

 

Merry Christmas - Happy Holidays whatever they may be - Good Cheer.

"'They' say that 35mm film will be surpassed by digital within a foreseeable future":

 

Geoff is right. "They" said books, would be surpassed (and obsoleted) by Movies - then by TV. 'They' said, TV news would replace newspapers; that planes would replace autos, that land line phones would be replaced by cell phones and that brick and mortar stores would be replaced by the web. All true, all false. Fact; new technologies seldom replace older ones - they usually supplement them (8 track tapes aside).

 

While affordable digital is approaching the sharpness, and quality of 35-mm film, we're all beginning to realize that it's different. There's good reasons to use digital at times, and good reason to use film (the list of differences could fill the forum). I'm going to digital for many things (35 only at the moment based on budget), and loving it. For others I'll stay with film, in 35 or larger.

 

..."'they' say it will challenge medium format pretty soon in terms of sharpness, quality etc (information captured)":

 

IMHO that's going to take a while yet, at least affordably (10yrs?). I can shoot a 6x7 with my Mamiya and scan it in my somewhat affordable 4,000 dpi film scanner and have an image of about 100mp. I believe that this resolution approaches the resolution of the film. A comparably priced 100mp camera (or system) may be a ways off. Even when it comes, it will be different than my Mamiya with Provia (which is different yet from my MF and Astia, or T-Max, etc. etc.) and I'll be willing to be I'll want to use both (or all) for different uses. Unless digital changes, no doubt that system will have 100mp on a much smaller chip area than my 6x7 so I'll need ridiculously wide lens for the landscape work I do.

 

"The option is of course to get a digital back to a MF, but I cannot motivate that expense as a happy amateur":

 

I agree - see above, that gives me some - not all, but some - of the advantages of digital and still all of the advantages of film.

 

If I didn't have a MF now, and I wanted the advantages of MF over 35, digital wouldn't even come into my consideration. If you think you could use and enjoy an MF system, Patrick, don't deprive yourself of it - trust me, and the rest of the guys on this web, it's grand (assuming you really want/need/enjoy the difference).

 

I have digital, 35 SLR, 35 P&S, MF SLR, 4x5 (all accumulated over the years and all still eminately wonderful) and if I could afford it I'd probably have MF R, 8x10 and anything else 'they' can give me. Digital is great but it 'ain't film and it definitely 'aint MF.

Ken,

I've had the Pola ss120 since it first came out, quite a while now. Jeff hit on two important issues-support and banding- that also swayed my decision. Like Jeff, I've had excellent response for assistance when I needed it from Polaroid (mostly issues setting it up with firewire/scsi OS etc. issues). I don't think the chapter11 really has much to do with you and me, the support still seems better than the alternative, from what I hear from friends and this thing has been running like a champ.

 

The quality of the scan is GREAT. The 4,000 dpi seems to me to be finer than the film grain (and I use velvia/provia mostly, on a tripod). That means I can blow picts up beyond the abilty to hold the grain. I can't speak to the comparison to the nikon, but the clear blue skys are clear blue continuos tone. I've heard good things about ICE, but I've never felt lacking for cleanup and such. I've done some old damaged slides and they did fairly well, though still requiring some work. Anyway, you could get ICE if you wanted to.

 

Bottom line, I wouldn't trade mine. Good luck.

Wayne,

Don't you love the passion we have about our equipment. You ask about the RZ and you get everyone's own equipment instead - that's ok, that's what makes it fun.

 

I have an RZ that I use almost exclusively for landscape, I spend a lot of time in the Everglades. I used to use a 4x5 field a lot, but I just don't bother much anymore.

 

I like to use the prism finder because most of the time I don't have to fool with a spot meter. It's not as fast and furious as a 35 but it's a heack of a lot faster than a lf. I've got some golden glow shots that I just never seemed to get with the lf.

 

The RZ isn't known for being light, but go back and look at the archives, a lot of people don't care, me among them. I treck the darn thing around in the 'glades hip deep in swamp and alligators (literally) and it's just fine by me. I'll also pack it into the mountains when I frequently go to Monatana & Wyoming. And I'm an old guy. Compared to 35 stuff it's heavy, compared to lf it's light- even compared to my field 4x5.

 

I use a tripod 95% of the time, but I won't hesitate to hand hold (like when chasing birds) when I can use a strap or support my arms on my knees, etc. You can even do mirror lock up like this if you want. The quality loss is there, but not as much as some people say if you do it right. It's never as easy as a 35 or a 7 for handheld, but then the loss of quality is more than made up for by the larger neg. Hand holding an RZ isn't ideal, but a lot of folks do it.

 

I won't use a 7, lighter or not, gorgeouse camera or not, because of the lens selections and the finder. I like to use a pola filter or what have you and see the result - and I like to use the prism so I don't have to manually calucuate. I won't consider a square format, and I looked at other cameras, but like I said; we have our passions and the RZ is mine.

 

Re the lenses; check the archives there are some great discussions about them. I've depended heavily on the fine people contributing to this site for their great info. I have an older 50mm lens that I use more than any other for landscapes, though I'm not entirely happy with it, I'm about to trade for a newer 50 that corrected some of the problems (fuzzines at infinity primarily, the archives cover it well). The 50 or a 65 are probably the favorites for short landscape lenses - both (if talking about the newer 50s) are supurb lenses.

 

re the cut back, I think you can get 'em but I'm not sure why you'd want to. The max image you'll ever get is the opening of the back, actually a little over the 6x7, something like 6x9 if memory serves - but you'd have to use more expensiver cut film for a small image, sounds like waste. Again, check the archives.

 

Hope my opionated views help some, or at least address your specific questions.

Richard,

I live in Miami - lot like Houston maybe more so. I also do a lot of shooting outside in the Everglades and I seldom have much trouble with condensation with minimal effort:

 

Film goes from refrigerator (or freezer) to the counter the night before shooting, or at least several hours or more before. I carry a small cooler with blue ice just for film, but don't put the film right on it, I lay it on a towell so it's cool but not froze. Film in cooler is in baggie, leave in baggie for at least an hour or more in the outside heat before loading. I've never had condensation problems that I know of.

 

I don't worry too much about condensation on the camera either, though I sometimes get it. If I do, Later, I'll clean the cameras to be sure there's no remaining moisture. Maybe I'm too cavalier about the condensation, but it doesn't seem to have every casued me any trouble.

 

Heat is another matter. I've had tons of film wasted by heat - thus the cooler. And I would never leave my camera stuff in the Garage, the heat and moisture invites mildew, gunk, rust and who knows what all kinds of nasties. I once accidentally left an old lens in a cabinet in the garage and it looked like... well, it was rusted and slimy and stuff.

Fred - any results yet? Like Cedric and the others I'm considering switching. I have the standard 50 and am not happy at all with the shrpness at infinity nor the light falloff (I take primarily landscapes in the everglades and have lots of vast landscapes off to the horizon and vast skys). Maybe it's ok for pub, but for hanging on the wall it's not so great. Thanks.

William,

I faced the same quesion about a year ago- I even rented each for a day to see if the II was really worth it. For me (Landscapes and wildlife mostly), the differences were too minor to mention. I went with the older RZ, used in 9 condition. With the money I saved I got another lens, also used in 9 cond. I've never looked back. I love my RZ, and I'm certain that I use and appreciate the extra lens a heck of a lot more than I would the minor additional features of the II. But of course-as always- it's a personal decision.

Fred has a good point about the 110 - check the archives of MFD for some great info re: selection of appropriate lenses for the type of work you want to do. Make sure the 90 is right for what you want to do and fits into a strategy of complementary lenses for future purchases. If it's not: if you're buying from a used dealer they will sub another lens if they have it (mine did).

Good luck, either way you'll love the equipment.

I would like to experiment with Polaroid Time Zero film emulsion

manipulation. I'd like to use my MF gear (Mamiya RZ67) and am

reluctant to spend the bucks on the daylab 120 - from what I hear the

lens and image quality isn't so great anyway. So: is it possible to

use Time Zero film packs in a Polaroid back(or better NPC back;again

the $) on my RZ? The film pack is the same size as the other pola

packs, right? so it should fit and focus? Exposure shouldn't be a

problem should it? Anybody out there doing this?

Chris,

I do lots of egrets. I second the opinion of the Royal Gold. I recently shot some Gold (unusual;I usually do transparancies, with lots of Velvia), and got some of my best shots. The detail in the feathers was smooth and subtle with clear whites but a very slight peach tone in the shading that some might object to on the grounds it's not natural coloration, but that I loved. If you use velvia you can't be too concerned about 'natural' colors anyway. I blew some of the shots up to 11x14 and the grain was excellent. I used a 300 lens on tripod. My suggestion for mid day is to back light, as I did with these shots. I spot metered the egret and then compensated 2 1/2 stops (more than I would with tranparancies) and bracketed around that setting. This set the bird off from the sky background very nicely.

 

Hope it helps.