the moderator doesnt lik

Oh, Yann, your post is so strange and confusing. B&W filters are called 'contrast' filters because they contrast colors in the scene, when there are susceptible colors. Darkroom filters for printing on multigrade papers serve an entirely different purpose than filters for the camera.

 

Red does tend to create higher contrast negatives because of the scene, but yellow (K2) is relatively benign and on a clear day with a blue sky it can render things so that the tones are closer to what we see.

 

OP: Go here: http://www.acecam.com/magazine/filters-faq.html or here: http://www.geocities.com/COKINFILTERSYSTEM/id77.htm

 

In principle, if you remember the rule on how they work, uses will become clear: The filter blocks colors other than the color of the filter. Now that means to varying degrees, of course. See the examples above.

You can also use the STROKE layer option.

Sorry. I meant that your negatives might have lower than anticipated range. You can make that up with a higher contrast paper or printing filter, or curves if you are into photoshop.

 

Very Best,

Exposed at ISO 50! Well, if you mean Ilford Pan F, and your metering was incident, which is the general average, then you over exposed by two stops. But you know that. If I misunderstood, please disregard the rest of this.

 

Here's the thing to do. Use Rodinal as a stand-development agent. Dilute Rodinal 1:150 and develop for 45 minutes with agitation only for the first minute to knock the bubbles off the film.

 

It works. If you negatives have too much range, then... be happy. It is better than the alternative with blocked highlights.

The requisites for being a Professional Photographer are lower than those for being a hooker. And the pay is worse, too. So is the overhead.

You spent huge dollars on the best raster imaging software on earth, and you haven't explored HELP or the built-in actions?

 

Shame.

The traditional definition of a Professional, or at least the previous definition before the age of revisionism, was restricted to lawyers, MDs and PhD scholars.

 

Lawyers, fer gosh sake! :)

Acceptable DOF is dependent upon degree of enlargement, and of course personal tolerance for fuzzies. If you enlarge 10x, for example, you should choose a pessimistic circle-of-confusion (CoC).

 

For example, if I have to enlarge a 6x6cm to 10x, I use the CoC commonly acceptable to 35mm format. (Hasselblad once published exactly this recommendation pertaining to the hyperfocal scale of their SWC camera, saying that the scale on the lens was not to be considered for serious enlargements.)

 

The DOFMASTER informat is helpful. Useit. http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

 

If you images are not sharp enough, and everything else about your technique is good, try the COC setting of a smaller format, for example 6cm (your vertical dimension). If it's still not sharp enough, change the subject distance.

 

After you've made a hundred images you will know intuitively how to work it.

In some countries you are not a professional until the state licenses you, and to get that license you have to have accredited training and education and pass a test.<p>

It is that way in my state if you want a State staff photography position.<p>

In the USA anyone who earns a coin or in-kind payment can call himself a professional, for better or worse.<p>

If you want a certain kind of 'professional' status, you might apply to certain affiliating authority for membership - hopefully one that is selective and can drop you if/when you no longer do suitable work, or have violated ethics, something like that.<p>

 

In darker moments I don't think one's a professional until he's had his pictures stolen and sold by someone else for profit. Another measure would be when one is required to carry business insurance to carry out his photography. But those are dark moments.

"Heard from a fellow photographer" makes your sample of reviews only one larger. You know the metrics. Ignore him.

Your camer appears to use Linhof TECHNIKA type lens boards. These boards differ from most in that the lens hole is off-center, set closer to the bottom of the board. IF your camera uses the TECHNIKA boards, and IF it has no front fall, then that offset is convenient.

 

Also, most 90mm super-angulons mounted for the TECHNIKA use recessed boards. Your camera may, or may not require a recessed board, depending upon how much the bellows compress, and how much free movement you have left over when they are compressed.

 

Finally, there are a number of 'generic' (made in China) TECHNIKA lens boards. Just be certain you get a good one. Linhof brand boards have a rather nice design on the backside to seat well.

Michael? What about the distance of the aperture from the film? While not LF, you can look at the sharp Nikkor 300mm F4.5 lens which has the aperture blade assembly completely outside of the lens cluster, close to the lens mount.

 

And a telephoto lens necessarily has a shorter physical length than the long lens.

 

Does your principle still apply? In these cases?

 

Does it really apply at all? Does the Airy disk's first minima in fact degrade to insignificance because of the distance?

Digital images can't fade. Adjust your brain.

 

The ultimate archive for an image? Post it on the Interent. It will be copied, cached and live forever, for better or worse.

<i>But the light rays in the 470 mm lens have to travel 10 times farther to reach the image, spreading out over this distance, so the linear size of the diffraction effects ends up being the same. And it's the linear size that tells us how much the image is smeared.</i><p>

<b>How do telephotos relate to the aperture to film distance part of the problem?</b>

Leonard, does not diffraction depend upon the physical size of the aperture? F22 on a 47mm lens is physically smaller than F22 on a longer lens. So it would seem that an aperture at F22 on, for example, a 300mm lens would be considerably larger, less susceptible to diffraction than F22 on a 47mm.

First, the 47mm Super-Angulon is strange, at least to me. Schneider made a F5.6 and an F8 version early on. Further, there may have been two different F5.6 versions. I have an early F5.6 and have used it on 4x5.

 

It does not cover 4x5. It comes close, but you must consider other factors such as the kind of fall-off a lens has. I'm too dim to understand the specs given by manufacturers, but I know what I've used and seen. Better luck to you with the factor charts.

 

Frankly, I'm done with Schneider lenses. If I could afford it, I would repurchase nothing but Rodenstock today.

<i>Found this on Ken Rockwell's site. ...</i><p>

You wo't find Ken Rockwell with anything other then prestigious hardware on his pro jobs. So it matter to him for some reason.

It happens over time and is irreversable.

 

If you have Photoshop you can create an action that automatically fixes specific pixels by coordinate.

Oh, there is a 120mm Hypergon on that auction site right now. It's only $10,238.00 US.

 

*whimper*

Stereo imaging is pretty much a nobrainer for the very near future when for the price of a cell-phone subscription people will be able to plug-into implants, probably in the mastoid.

 

I'll say that 2011 will be The Year.

 

So when your kids are looking at you then with smiling eyes, they might be surfing the net and you are actually irrelevant.

 

Then we stop walking.. (kidding)...

 

What's that song? In the year 2525? As with most predictions it was optimistic.