aplumpton

<p>Barry and James, the important variable for DOF, whether in large format or 35mm, is the focal length of the lens. Of course, LF permits more easily a way of increasing DOF by tilts of the front and back frames, whereas only a very limited number objectives exist in 35mm to accomplish something similar. </p>

<p>Projecting one's interior world on the outside world by means of photography is but one of similar everyday interactions I have, and no doubt others may have, with the outside world. It is the price of the gift of thought acquired by the first sapiens and more recently part of one's personal history, values, sentiments and experience.</p> <p>The cause and effect between the two is as varied as the characteristics themselves of the various interior worlds and outside worlds, whether speaking of various and different individuals (including photographers) and the multitude of regions and cultures. Like Wouter and others, I have more than marginally benefitted from living with people of a different society, on one occasion overseas for 7 years and then in a neighbouring country for one year, and also with people in in a number of regions of distinct cultural makeup within my own country. The effect of these exterior worlds on my interior world has been beneficial to my curiosity and growth. Equivalent experiences and interactions between interior and exterior worlds can also be sensed and forged during one's absorbtion of literature, art and social study.</p> <p>The sum of influences means, I think, that our interior worlds are in constant evolution and part of that dynamic is to regularly take the inputs and express them in some manner in the outside world, to test them or to attempt to find some bridges between the two. Those acts, photographic or other, are somewhat akin to the art instructor's experiment of placing one's hand in a small bag of marbles, pebbles, small manmade articles, soft or hard or textured surfaces and, without looking at them, to draw an image that represents what is felt. Applying one's inner world to the exterior in photography is I think a little like that, semiconscious and based on somewhat imprecise application of interior knowledge, experience and sentiments to a creation of something in the outside world. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Victor didn't mention whether he is using 35mm or another format. Even with the more limited DOF of medium format or larger a tripod is often the best friend to enable closing down the aperture to a value more open than the diffraction limits of the lens. Even with the considerable depth of field of normal and wide angle optics in 35mm a tripod or good image stabilisation feature are useful.</p> <p>I usually prefer detailed backgrounds in landscapes, but not always to the point of sacrificing close or mid range subject sharpness. Again, the tripod is a good friend for near to far sharpness. Fuzzy background detail in large prints often degrades the overall perceived quality of the image, even if the background is not the main subject and only a secondary subject.</p> <p>When is a landscape not a landscape? It can be argued that close subject matter and a fuzzy distant background is sometimes less a landscape or not a landscape and more an image featuring the close vegetation, human interest, architecture, boat, car, animal or whatever may be the characteristic of the close main subject. Some landscapes involving close but fuzzy details can be successful as the foreground environment then leads the viewer's eye to the sharp middle to distant features, even adding a sort of 3 dimensional quality to what is being perceived.</p> <p>Remember also that the eye sees in a very very narrow beam of sharp detail (1 or 2 degrees of angle), all else being fuzzy until the person scans the other detail. Like the written pages of a book, however, we end up scanning the whole image and overall sharpness can be valuable.</p> <p> </p>

<p>David, I understand your point and would suggest that the intended viewer is important in that print acceptance. <br> In former darkroom printing days (and probably today) the standard for quality, whether colour or black and white, were the contact prints from LF cameras, often 5x7 or 8x10 inches (or larger) that permit some ease of viewing the contact print. Enlarged images fall short of the subtle tonality quality of those contact prints and certainly that occurs noticeably once the magnification of the negative or slide exceeds a certain value. Some would say that is only 4X or 6X, at most. Of course, it all depends on how critical one might be in assessing the technical beauty of a recorded image. Large is the parameter determined by the degree of acceptance of viewer and photographer. </p>

<p>Jochen raised the same point as I did regarding the aspect ratio, which for me was a clincher in making large prints. If you use the 2:3 ratio for prints the Fuji gives you approximately 54 sq. cm of negative versus the Mamiya which provides only 33 sq. cm. of effective negative (cropped to the equivalent 2:3 aspect ratio). This advantage for me is why I bought into the manual Fujifilm professional camera (which prior to GS series discontinuance provided 6x7, 6x8 (Japan release) and 6x9 models).</p> <p>If you do much other than landscapes, the Mamiya may have advantages, like my Mamiya 6 used for street, nature, some architecture, and other non landscape subjects. If you are primarily a landscape photographer, with the benefit of additional time for previsualisation, exposure measurement and image capture, you may find the Fuji adapted to your need.</p> <p>The Fuji doesn't have all the automatic features and lens expandability of a Mamiya but itssimplicity may well assure a longer life expectancy. The unique shutter counter provides good indication of when CLA may be advisable. Other than its minimalist exterior, the main part of the lens assembly is formed of metal like Hasselblads or Rolleis, and the shutter mechanism is likewise. The built-in plastic lens hood may bother some as it is slightly wobbly during, but not after, its extension, but unimportant in my case. You also have to treat the exterior resin composite body with normal care. It actually becomes a benefit in really cold weather (winter landscape photography) where metal of some other landscape cameras is uncomfortable to the touch.</p> <p>Whether you shoot slide, color negative or film (not mentioned in the OP) is also important. 6x9 slide projectors are quite rare (the case also for 6x7), although digital transformation may be your preferred route, thereby ignoring that problem. Negatives to digital or to print are not a problem with 6x9 (on the contrary, for large negative size reasons) unless you print in the darkroom and do not have a 6x 9 or larger format enlarger.</p> <p>Both are good systems and you can decide based upon your priorities regarding fim medium, aspect size, quality, lens expandability, simplicity and durability, automation or not, and convenience.</p>

<p>Perhaps your friend might first consider the format of the large prints he wants to make. I use the 65mm version of the same Fuji 6 x 9 cm camera but often make 16 x 20 and occasionally 20 x 24 inch prints. The 6 x 9 negative would normally print without cropping to 16 x 24 or 20 x 30 inch print sizes.</p> <p>In so doing, I am not getting much greater benefit of negative size than a 6 x 7 cm negative that is effectively a negative of 5.6 x 7 cm, when printing to 16 x 20. The difference in the two negative sizes is therefore not very great when you consider using either size to make those conventional large print paper sizes. The 6 x 9 cm has the advantage in vertical architectural use off being able to tilt the camera slightly to minimize keystoning of vertical lines or in the use of the 9 cm width to make 3 x 9 or 4.5 x 9 ratio panorama images.<br /> I usually print to 13 x 20 or 16 x 24 prints with the Fuji, reducing the size of the standard papers in order to get full benefit of the larger negative quality but that may not be the choice of your friend. Apart from the question of paper sizes and the two systems, the Fuji is a very good camera, not expensive compared to the Mamiya 7 and 50mm lens, but without exposure measurement or automation. Both optics are good enough (the Mamiya may be slightly better on paper) for high quality enlargements to the preceding sizes. The 50 and 65mm on their cameras are roughly equivalent (due to different aspect ratios) to the 28mm lens on the 35mm system, but the 43 mm on the 7 will give him a wider angle if he needs that (at a cost).</p> <p>Another thing to consider is that when using slower higher resolution films the Fuji may more often need a tripod than the 7 with a 43 mm lens, owing to the lesser DOF of the former. He should try to find a Fuji with low shutter actuations (the numbers on its baseplate counter have to be multiplied by ten) as servicing is getting increasingly more difficult with time as these cameras age. I have had my Fuji for about fifteen years and it soldiers on, but it is not intensively used. It is fairly bulky but not so much if you are happy with just one focal length. It is also more robust than my Mamiya 6 of about the same age, a brilliant smaller (6 x 6 cm) system, but which has caused me two repair bills, one for the film advancement mechanism malfunction, the other for a 50 mm lens requiring repair to its in lens shutter solenoid. The 7 may be better in that regard.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Some interesting examples you cite Fred of what motivates certain artists/photographers. I agree that artists like Monet was inspired by flowers and water lilies and how they reflect light. The interior world is made up of such affinities. When jack is querying -<br> <br> "How much do we project our interior world on the canvas of the world at large?"</p> <p>is he referring to the exterior elements that inspire or motivate the photographer or is he thinking more of the way the artist deals with the motivational subjects in his specific way? I guess that I interpret the interior world as being that of the photographer's lived experience, his values and how his brain deals with creation. Those thoughts, whether very personal or sometimes influenced by the group values or aesthetic (exterior influences), are more what I was thinking of in suggesting that good artists are less influenced by how others might create something and much more personal and original in their creation. I think the latter interior world is what makes a (very good to) great artist. </p> <p>Monet projected his interior world of how he imagined and perceived light and plants onto the outside world by his works and no doubt influenced others, just as Van Gogh, in seeing the world in a specific manner (like his famous painting in greenish tones of fellow inmates walking around in a circle during daily exercise - constrained perspectives and activity of the incarcerated and perhaps of his temporary mental state - or his swirly renditions in other paintings of skies and landscapes, a then unique product from his imagination. Those personal creative thoughts and actions may be what Jack is thinking, and myself, when he refers to projecting the interior world onto the outside world?</p> <p>I am also a very limited yet committed artist/photographer. Sometimes I think I am projecting my interior world onto the outside world, but that may be fanciful thinking to a large degree, obfuscated perhaps by what one may call a repetitive style which others may recognize as one's own. So that jury is definitely still out.</p> <p>I am very appreciative of those artists that through their interior world of imagination, insight and unique creation produce great works and communicate their personal and original creations to others, thereby projecting that to the outside world.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If it were the case that artists' motivations had something so strong in common, that would be a significant example of a herd mentality and lack of uniqueness.</p> </blockquote> <p>If you are referring to my statement about great artists being inspired by their own inner world, I absolutely fail to see that a common aspect of greatness like being primarily directed by his or her own inner world and imagination would constitute a "herd" instinct. That might be the case of not great artists who may be content (and even commercially successful in some cases) to simply follow the crowd.<br /> <br /> On the contrary, greatness is dependent upon breaking away from the common mentality and thought and achieving original works (Original - "created directly and personally by a particular artist; not a copy or imitation"). I am very surprised that you have yet to discern that in your own study of the thoughts and works of great artists.</p>

<blockquote> <p>outgrowing that shared part with its predictable reactions is what makes it hard to get that personal touch in photos and really manage to express oneself.</p> </blockquote> <p>That seems to me to be true. Our inner sense, values and motivations are partly innate (including learned), partly shared with others. I think what I am often looking for is a creative process and result that derives more from my inner world than that shared with the outside one. I think that is what also incites the great artists who not only do that but also communicate their unique vision to others (Munchen and Van Gogh did not fully succeed in that communication within their lifetimes, but the meaning of their art is now part of the established outer world). Whether I succeed or not is measured as much by the values of my inner world as those of the outside world. <br /> <br /> Expressing oneself also exists of course when the approach and results are very much in step with the art conventions or preferences of views of the outer world, although oneself may be more diluted.</p>

<p>The definition of hyperfocal focusing is that distance at which objects at both half that distance and infinity will be in acceptable focus, although not as sharp as the objects at the set distance (which is always true). Given that DOF acceptable resolution or circle of confusion on lenses is not all that good (still quite large), I always close down at least one f stop to ensure better results.</p>

<p>Tim, color negative film as you know has a lot more latitude than slide film, so exposure and lab processing unless really bad are lesser issues. But I rarely use them so I am perhaps not aware of all the problems. </p> <p>Getting average quality B&W negatives from a lab is not usually difficult, but excellent B&W negatives are not at all as easily attainable by such routes, which is also the case for printing. I know of few labs that will do dodging and burning or other selective image controls within reasonable price range for B&W negs. It is all a question of how much quality you want and many committed B&W workers with film do their own work or have professional printers do it. </p>

<p>I don't use either approaches, but in landscape photography I tend to use the optimum apertures of the lens (usually between 2 and 4 stops down) and recognize that the infinity distance is often the more important. If you use a depth of field scale on the lens (not all have them) you can set the hyperfocal distance (that in this case being between infinity and a closer distance) and use that aperture, or better (as DOF indications are minimum for sharpness) stop down to the next smaller aperture. If you don't have a DOF scale on your lens you can find one for your particular lens focal length via an Internet search and memorize the more important DOF situations where the longer distance is infinity.</p> <p>Life is much easier when you are using wide angle or very wide angle lenses or zoom settings as the DOF is much greater. My feeling is that it is sometimes worthwhile to check the results of the lens at various DOF - hyperfocal distance - aperture settings to find out which is best. I have a well rated 21mm lens that on long distance landscapes I prefer to set to infinity as the hyperfocal (in between) distance setting doesn't give as good rendition of far off details as the infinity setting. For best results a good inbuilt stabilisation system or tripod aid landscape photography.</p>

<p>Tim, I guess you are referring to lab development of color film. For many shooting black and white film, home processing is easy and high quality attainable in negatives, scanning or silver prints.</p> <p>No better and no worse than it ever was, if you don't mind accepting a somewhat smaller range of products. However, I photograph using only two different films, two types of papersand two camera systems so lack of a wider range of products is unimportant. </p>

<p>If you are living in a large or fairly large metropolitan area (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Canberra, Hobart, etc.) you might try Kijiji, Gumtree, or Craig's list (or the equivalent), allowing you local clients with whom you can discuss sales. The only precautions are to maintain some security until you discern that the potential buyer is serious and the transaction can be made securely for both.</p> <p>Sometimes the 80 mm is a good accompaniment for a body sale, but your announcement may offer either possibility. The 43mm and finder are particularly valued by landscape photographers.</p> <p>I have only the former Mamiya 6 and not the 7, but the panoramic attachment is of doubtful utility as one can always visually crop a 2 1/4 by 2 1/2 inch frame when making an image on film.</p>

<p>Barry, try the "installed" "Portraits" section of her home page gallery to have an illusion of real size effect in a gallery. Her use of blur or OOF is not new but she does control the chromatic range which might be important in her results (subtle variations of tone?). They are on large fabric pieces hung while leaving folds in the material (intentional?). She uses Polaroid exposures which explain a bit the physical nature of the images. Apparently one has to look at the image for some time to see the subtleties. Not sure that I see them, but maybe I am too impatient. Perhaps some of her revenues come from art council grants. </p>

<p>Robert, I wouldn't underestimate the Tele-Elmarit 90. It's a superb little lens within its best apertures (f4 and down). The 16-35 FE Vario Tessar is a good everyday optic with fine perfomance if you can stand a little visible distortion at its shorter focal lengths. </p>

<p>Nice to have such rapid service. I have an Autocord that could do with a good CLA. Where is he located? Was your servicing quite extensive (That is, does he have the means to do extensive repairs)? Thanks.</p>

<p>Reactions occurring at a surface between a solid body (film) and a solution can be affected if the reaction products or reagent are not being frequently removed (reaction products) or replenished (developer) in order to maintain the reaction under optimum conditions. This is true for many chemical systems and most likely for photographic processing. Ultrasound may disturb that surface and the chemicals involved, but I question whether its short distance effect is enough to move chemicals over the distances required to remove or replenish them. Good old shaking or rocking mechanical motions are probably still the best agitation methods to achieve the result in home processing.</p> <p>Having said that, the fly in the ointment is nonetheless the question of why stand development (absence of agitation) results in development? Time for a little Googling...</p> <p>OK, I found this quote on lack of agitation (stand development): "Without agitation, stand development can suffer from <em>bromide drag</em>. The developing process produces bromide ions, which settle towards the bottom of the developing tank. In doing so they create streaks of uneven development on the surface of the film" (Wikipedia source). I think it confirms the notion that sufficient agitation is useful in avoiding such effects, while not necessarily ruling out very short distance agitation as a method of that.<br> <br> One of the advantages of manual agitation is that it keeps me awake, busy and aware of the total process time, whereas something like ultrasonic agitation and without a process timer to stop it might have the opposite effect. </p>

<p>Julie, interesting comment. Perhaps though it is digital and its ever expanding gadgetry and performance that is a novelty. Digital is a powerful imaging tool, whether for the casual smartphone photographer or the larger camera user. But most things, at least in B&W, can still be done with film and silver based papers.</p> <p>If there is any novelty for some with film, it is perhaps that of returning to slow and less easily predictable photography?</p>

<p>I wonder how easily one can distinguish differences in picture quality on an Internet site where the dpi is perhaps optimally 125 but often only 60% of that? Consequently, any perceived quality differences between digital and film produced images would be obscured by the limited resolution, unless for some reason your film images possess significantly better tonal rendition than your digital photos, which would be unusual if you are at a high level of technical performance with both systems.</p> <p>Without further information, such as seeing the images in person, I can only guess that the film images are qualitatively different from the digital images and their subject and compositions somehow more appealing to viewers. I know that my film images are often composed more leisurely than many of my digital images, often owing to the time required to set up the camera on a tripod and to verify exposure or bracket it. This may not be a factor allowing additional reflection time in your photography (assuming you reflect similarly when shooting digitally).</p> <p>My guess is that for that or another reason your photographic approach and perceived compositions were different when you were using film rather than digital. The choice of medium probably had little to do with the differences apparently registered by the visitor appreciations.</p> <p>As for greater interest in film, I think the situation between the two is relatively stable over the past few years but perhaps the low cost of used darkroom equipment is enticing more to try darkroom printmaking, its pleasures and level of print quality. Scanning film is probably more prevalent as a route, but present scanning equipment of high quality is not so readily available. </p>

<p>The V-C 35mm f2.5 is a very good choice, particularly if you shoot B&W.</p>

<p>Fred, I appreciate your comments. Sometimes I try to whisper in the ear of the viewer with a title (e.g., the "Reflection" image) but then often rethink that it is better to let the viewer decide how the photo strikes him or her. I am sometimes a little disappointed that the "meaning" of the image does not always transfer easily to others but then that is the nature of subjective creation and appreciation. Yes, I was referring in my post to cropping, but I am conscious also of the fact that any discussion related to either cropping or to initial image creation per se is highly dependent upon what we define as "less" and what we define as "more". Quantitative and qualitative measures. I am glad you brought up that phrase and approach ("More is more") for those of us here to reflect upon.</p> <p>"More is more" can refer in one sense to extra subject matter, but I prefer instead to think of it as a more perceptive or profound interpretation of what is being seen by the photographer. "Less is more" inspires much of my work. What I mean by that is a concentration on the essential element or even elements of what I see. More is less in those cases, hopefully providing graphical and emotional attributes of an image that can be unencumbered by what may be unnecessary, misleasing and sometimes even counterproductive detail.</p> <p>I like some of the Oriental approaches to photography and art in general. Yûgen seeks to evoke a subject rather than describe it in detail. It often enters into the area of the mysterious. Shibui is an approach and antonym of “sweet”, the latter in one extreme I think of as “eye candy”. Shibui, that I find a bit closer to my approach than Yûgen (Yûgen I find harder to deploy in practice), is an aesthetic based on the portrayal of a simple, subtle and unobtrusive beauty. Minimalism can be associated with that I think, as "less is more" in those cases by virtue of depicting what is subtle, not shown, or not overly emphasized (as in “sweet”). Some of my photos, like the case for any of us, occur by stumbling across what my curiosity and eye finds and wants to perceive in a different way, or like others, I simply pose (set up) my images to deal with a certain thought (like the photo "Reflection") I might have. I don't see you cropping or reducing your subject matter in many of your images but rather see you seeking (as in your portraits or human activity shots) additional environmental elements that strengthen the image.</p>

<p>My 1980s 35 and 50mm Summicron Leica lenses had a very nice colour rendition with K25 slide film. My then camera club friends also though that I used a polarizer, which i did not in most cases. The contrast of the lenses was part of the reason I think. The Leica optics are not always perfectly neutral in colour rendition but not far off neutral and I think this is a fairly minor issue with them. I am told that the 45mm and othe G series Contax (Kyocera) lenses of that period had amazingly fine differentiatation between varied tones of each colour, but that would be the same for negative or positive transparency film.</p> <p>The most beautiful tones I ever saw in prints of my own work were obtained with a Leica M4-2 and the 35mm Summicron (vers.IV) on Kodak colour negative film processed in Finland. I never really repeated that series with the same quality. Perhaps it was more the quality of the northern light in the midsummer.</p>