paulrumohr

I like doing location environmental portraits with Portra NC 400 in 4X5. When light is

changing fast and you don't have absolutely precise time to meter, it's fantastic!

It's only available in 10 sheet boxes- no quickloads, so it's a little expensve per sheet and

you have to use film holders. But man it looks great.

I got turned on to it by one of my favorite professional fashion photographers who used it

one year to shoot the Art of Fashion Book for Neiman Marcus. He shot models in

Parisian apartments under challenging natural light conditions (on 4X5!). The results were

stunning.

I am planning to pick up the new Microtek MF scanner, the Artixscan 120tf, but am

wondering if I should spring the extra $130 for the optional MF glass film hoder.

I'm particularly worried about additional dust and scratches to have to clean up after

scanning (since I already have an aversion to post production responsibilities), and of

course the appearance of dreaded Newton rings.

I'm interested in finding out from those who have tried both scanning with and without

glass holders what your opinions are and what your experiences have been like. If you

have any special techniques with glass holders I'd love to know.

Thanks!

1 good shot a month = 1 $50 drum scan + 1 $50 Lightjet.

It is that easy, my friend. $100/month for 1 fabulous print.

Of course, before photoshop, and HAVING to image process everything, I remember the

economics being slightly different.

1 good shot= 1 roll of 120 film $6 + Processing & Proof $14 + 16X20 Print $40

I believe that works out to about $60. Life is getting more and more expensive!

Richard,

There is no Polaroid material with the contrast range of a Provia 100F transparency.

Don't forget that it's not just the limitation of Polaroid's scientists to do this- it is the

inherent limitation of looking at an image in reflected light (ie the polaroid) and a

transmissive image (ie the gorgeous glowing chrome on a lightbox). The transmissive

image will always win- with its white point not constrained by the reflectivity of the

material it's on.

Polaroid is not as near useless as I have made it out to be. It is not a panacea to solving

your exposure issues- but it can be used with some efficacy in the manners previously

discussed.

If you are shooting transparency, the answer to your question is no. Despite the $

polaroid invests in advertising that it can do this, it really can't.

This DOESN'T mean pros don't use it every day to TRY to do this. I use polaroids to show

my art directors what they're getting as far as content and composition. I do not use it for

exposure assurance of any kind. My assistants do not use the polaroids as some kind of

absolute proof as to exposure (ie camera settings) or color accuracy (ie filter pack).

The cameras exposure and filter packs are set according to how we KNOW the film will

look because of a recent film test, using both an exposure and color meter. We carefully

measure, record, and conduct our tests. We then review the results and discuss what the

true ISO of a film is while running through a particular lab's line. This is why we use pro

films and pro labs.

So the question is why do we bother showing art directors polaroids that will eventually

not look EXACTLY like film? The answer is that properly color filtered, exposed, and

processed film looks WAY BETTER than any polaroid proof. When we deliver, we proudly

pick up our checks!

Transparency film has much better shadow and highlight detail than even the most mellow

of Polaroid materials (eg 669, 59) and much better color. Also because we have done our

homework, there are no surprises with exposure or color.

Why did you buy your polaroid back? If you're honest with yourself after having used it for

a while, you'll find you're using it to check the overall composition of your images, and

maybe ballpark an exposure if you forgot your meter somewhere, or it's failed. You might

also use it as a tool to get people on your shoot excited about what's happening, since you

and your assistants are the only ones looking through the camera's perspective.

When I started as an assistant, and before I knew any better, I witnessed more forms of

Polaroid voodoo than you can imagine. Everyone had their own formula- open up a 1/2

stop for polaroid for one photographer, stop down 1/2 a stop for another, process the

polaroid pack under your armpit, wave the polaroid around, peel the polaroid corner to

check to see if it's unexposed parts have turned from red to solid black, and a whole host

of additional useless BS polaroid folklore.

Trying to get Polaroid color to match film color (and exposure) is akin to the modern day

technological nightmare of getting your computer monitor to match your printer. It took

color scientists of the ICC years to figure out how to get computers to do it, and WE are

trying to do it without computers, waving our polaroids in the air in the desert one week,

by the ocean the next and up in the mountains the following- all hoping that the polaroid

will KNOW through ESP what we want it to look like.

FYI your polaroid back is fine, but I would have recommended you getting the glassless

NPC Polaroid Hassy back. It is more durable, less expensive, and produces sharper

polaroids than the one you've got.

As far as using Polaroid or even Fujiroid to check exposure rather than compositional

issues, I think you would be far better off testing the actual film stocks you plan to use at

the pro labs you plan to process them.

Heyward,

For a student field camera, you HAVE to get a Shehao for $625 at Badger Graphics.

Amazing movements, and SOLID value for the price.

If later you really like field cameras, you can pop for a Linhof or Arca Swiss when you go

pro!

I sleep with mine. Well, not really, but I do have it always set up, and love looking at it.

For all you wise guys waiting to pounce on me, I DO also use it!

I think its fabulous when someone thinks of solutions that others do not.

Thanks to everyone who overlooked the obvious limitations of my situation to create some

brilliant solutions!

I've received a request to shoot some small pieces of jewelry.

My field camera has 12" of bellows extension, so with my 150mm (6") lens racked

all the way out I'm getting something close to 1:1. Not bad, but-

I'd like to get in tighter for things like engagement rings and earrings. I know the field

camera is not the IDEAL camera to shoot tabletop, but I was hoping someone might have a

simple and/or possibly ingenious solution.

I'm using a Shen hao so I don't have the option of extending rails. Any suggestions?

You should consider using the Adobe Gamma application that comes with Photoshop.

Better would be to buy monitor calibration software like Colorvision's Optical or Gretag

Macbeths Eye One Photo.

Just hard jammed my hassy today. Accidentally hit the MLU lever with the middle finger

of my left hand in the process of removing the lens.

Oops. Trip to the service technician Monday morning.

But my red hassy is SOOO COOOOOL.

I think the altitude problem F Kennedy is referring to is the stronger UV and bluer light at

higher altitude.

Need to bring a color meter. Bracket.

Finding a good deal on 120 film while travelling to new countries and new places is next

to impossible. It may be impossible to find any 120 at all!

Take the film with you, put it throught X-Ray (but obviously don't put film in checked

baggage) and process it when you get home.

Perhaps someone who has travelled extensively through Europe could provide a list of

suppliers- but do you really want to spend your time chasing down film in foreign places

instead of taking pictures?

I get odd sized proof prints from my lab- they are sloppy bordered full frame prints

on 5X6 proofs.

Strange, huh?

Here in Los Angeles there are pro labs that would print your Bronica neg extremely

close to full frame on 4X5 proofs.

You could even choose to have a slim white border, a keyline border, or a sloppy

border to showcase your full frame neg.

I think my lab is printing on a next generation Fuji Frontier. They also print their

proofs on long lasting, fairly dye-stable crystal archive paper.

Check out this link

http://www.imagexperts.com/color2.html

And go to the section that reads:

"120/220 Machine Prints from Color Negatives at time of Processing:"

Click on the sample links and see all the cool things you can do when proofing your

medium format film on 4X5 paper!

Hey!

Everyone responding to this thread should go and check out Vanessa's website-

www.vanessarogers.com.

It seems like you're already shooting quite a bit, Vanessa. Whatever you're using or

borrowing or renting or owning seems to be working.

Remember, the camera does NOT the photographer make.

Don't forget the ICON on Wilshire and Cochran in Los Angeles, and Nardulli's on La

Brea near Hollywood Blvd.

Just read the July Shutterbug's letter from the editor (Editor's Notes) and it seems he's

rediscovered the magic of film after a rainy afternoon looking at some of his chromes

on a light table he took in the ancient age of pre-digital.

Interesting.

I don't know if you all have had the chance to see the Fujifilm pullout in this month's

photo trade publications (Studio and Photography Design was it?). It showcases the

pro Fujichrome films, introduces Velvia 100 and reintroduces the Fuji instant film

packs.

There is a stunning example of what film can do when you open the fold out, a light

blonde/fair skinned European model shot on 6X7 with Fujichrome Astia. The blow up

measures approximately 16"X20".

The shot is grainless with the mellowest creamiest smoothest contrast I have seen in

a long long time. The colors are soft and subdued. I keep looking at it and looking

at it. Sure doesn't look like a high res video chip to me!

Now of course the image has been scanned and worked on digitally, but there is just

something outrageous in the quality of the capture on good old film.

The other shots in the pullout ad are also very good. I have to admit I am a terrible

victim of this particular brand of advertising. I will probably be shooting tons of

Fujifilm until, of course, Kodak does their new advertising!

If you've had the chance to see it, please let me know what you think.

With equipment costing what it does today, I would rent until your jobs can pay to

buy the gear.

If you are going to take on the additional expenses of living and competing as a

photographer in New York, buying a complete medium format kit could curtail your

career (especially if you are starting).

I hate to point this out to you, but most working pros have SEVERAL systems. For

example, several Pentax 67s with a Mamiya or Hasselblad system, 35s, Digital SLRs

and maybe even LF. This may seem at first because of camera fever, but the truth is

every assignment requires different equipment.

Unless you are financially independent, I think the best course of action is to rent

(even on personal tests you do to gain familiarity with the equipment). You can

always write rental off on your taxes, too.

I just returned from France and I took my Mamiya 7 and only the 65mm. It was great,

and I would do it again. I appreciated not having to use an external finder and then

focus through the one on the camera.

I missed about 10 to 15% of the shots I would have liked to take, but on the other

hand I didn't have to haul the farm around with me (the Hasselblads).

Next time I'm thinking I'll be adding the 43mm to my travel kit, and a carbon fiber

monopod.

I bought the camera and lens used in mint condition Mamiya 7 and the 65 for around

$1700 US in April of this year (2003). Consider a used system if $ are an issue.