dirk_dom1

<p>I'd give another vote for the Sony A7.</p> <p>Dirk. </p>

<p>And here's how it looks on the inside:</p> <div></div>

<p>Well, I'm going to San Francisco again this summer, for six weeks. This time, besides the city, I'm backpacking in Big Sur and maybe Sequoia and Yosemite. I'll take transportation to there with a big backpack, with my photo backpack in it, set up the tent and go on hikes with my photo backpack. I shoot a Linhof Technikardan 6x9 camera, and I want my photo pack to weigh ten kilo's (22 pounds) max.<br /> Now, there are two Dirks.<br /> The Dirk at home, who has all this incredible photo gear and thinks what incredible shots he could take with it and wants to take it all. That is of course impossible and it leads to months of frustrating decision process.<br /> Then, there is the Dirk on location, who hates to lug gear and does walkabouts with one camera and one lens (not even a photo bag) and has the best of times because of the endless photographic potential. He doesn't even think about all the other gear on his walkabouts. He very much prefers to walk the same route a few times, maybe with different gear.<br /> So, now I'm in the Dirk at home stage. Over the years I got a bit smarter and I'm taking either a Hasselblad Xpan or a Mamiya 7 (extremely tough choice) with one lens and the Linhof with four lenses, the 47, 65, 150 and 270mm.<br /> I wanted to lug the four lenses along in my backpack on my walkabouts (the potential you know) and I packed my big photo backpack. With my tripod attached, that came to 12 kilo's. And that pack is HUGE.<br /> After a day I started to realize that this pack would make me feel miserable on my hikes. So, I'll hike in with the four lenses and make my small backpack with just two, probably the 47 and the 270. I saved weight three times, making the pack: The small backpack weighs a lot less, less lenses and I made a custom cardboard divider which sorts everything very efficiently, saves lots of room and weighs less. i can even pack a lunch!<br /> Now, I was at ten kilo's, my perfect weight.</p> <p>See the shots below. I know, the tripod is big, but it's extremely good. A Gitzo travel tripod that can take the Linhof with 270mm costs 650 Euro's... I 'd save a kilo and a half.</p> <p>Now, if you've read this far, how do you manage on selecting gear for a trip? Does it also make you miserable, or are you hyper-efficient? How do you feel about the gear left at home when you're shooting on location? I'm very curious about how you manage and feel.</p> <p>Bye,</p> <p>Dirk.</p><div></div>

<p>Making an overblown shot can also be done in black and white. Here's one I took two years ago. Love it.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi!<br /> Art is personal. If you see something that makes your hair on your arms stand up in delight, it's art to you.<br /> For about three years now, I call myself an artist. The switch from technically competent photographer was very obvious. <br /> I started doing serious black and white landscape about two years ago and I have about five good photographs. Haven't sold anything yet because a four foot print on baryta paper costs me $750 and people think a photo costs 4 cents, because that's what they pay for a 4 by 6'' in a drugstore.<br /> It takes lots of time to do landscape and it's also very rewarding. Printing in black and white, you have to dare to go to the limit.<br> Ansel Adams was a true master printer. My goal is to approach him in printing skill, but it will take some more years. </p> <p>Bye,</p> <p>Dirk.</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>Hi!<br /> This year I'll spend eight weeks in San Francisco (Two with Easter and six in the summer) with a Linhof Technikardan 6x9 camera. I'll shoot rollfilm on 6x9 size. My ultimate goal is to go back to the city often over the years and make a book about the city and the people there. My wife and son live there, I live in Belgium. I'm strictly an amateur photographer. I do this for fun.<br /> I'll take a 47, 65, 150 and 270mm lens. I'm shooting black and white. I'll also have ND filters with me for long exposure daytime shots.<br /> I've spent six weeks in S.F. with a digital camera two years ago. I'll take public transportation and do long walks in a relaxed way, taking camera and max. two lenses every time.<br /> I sort of know my way around the city, but I have four questions, I can find literally nothing about shooting a technical camera in S.F.:</p> <p>Are there things I absolutely have to shoot?</p> <p>How do people react to someone shooting a technical camera in S.F.? May I get banned from places because my equipment looks "professional", and I have to set up a tripod, although a Canon 5D will probably take higher rez shots?</p> <p>Are there LF portfolio's on the Net from San Francisco?</p> <p>Is there stuff I absolutely need to know?</p> <p>thank you,</p> <p>Bye,</p> <p>Dirk.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi!</p> <p>I own a Linhof Technikardan 69 with 47mm, 65mm, 150mm and 270mm lens. I shoot 6x9 frmat rollfilm with it.<br /> This year I'm going to spend 8 weeks in San Francisco with it. I'll go on walks with camera gear in a backpack and carrying tripod in hand; I'll take max two lenses a walk.<br /> My question is: can I construct or buy a device with which I can previsualize the image, before setting up tripod and camera? I'll be shooting lots of architecture and I'll be looking for the perfect spot to shoot all the time.<br /> Maybe I can construct sort of a foldable sports finder out of cardboard with a plexiglass window in front, with the rectangles of angles of view put on it, and a small hole to look through in the back, which might be small enough to put in my pocket.<br /> I could also take a 35mm camera with me, with a lens which covers the same, but that would add to the load and I don't like that. <br /> I know, lots of practice will develop my view and should solve the problem, but I have very limited experience with it so far.<br /> I'm going to do long time exposures of about 7 minutes. I want to find the prefect spot for the shot.<br /> I think I need the device most for the 47 and 65mm.</p> <p>Any suggestions?<br /> Thank you,</p> <p>Dirk Dom.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi!</p> <p>I have an M240. <br> I've got two wire releases, one from HAMA and one from an unknown brand, one is 30cm, one half a meter. They work fine and smoothly.<br> They screw into the Leica fine. <br> When I push them and they are curved, they don't trigger the shutter. <br> When I push them and they are completely straight, they trigger the shutter about six times in ten.</p> <p>Do I need a special kind of wire release for the M240?</p> <p>Thank you,</p> <p>Dirk.</p>

<p>Hi!</p> <p>I have a Linhof Technikardan 69 and i want to buy a 270mm lens.<br> the Technikardan has max bellows extension of 340mm.<br> How close can i get with it?</p> <p>Is there a general formula (focal length, extension, closest distance) for this?</p> <p>I'm looking for a Schneider 270mm.</p> <p>Thank you,</p> <p>bye,</p> <p>Dirk Dom. </p>

<p>Hi!</p> <p>I'm going to San Francisco for six weeks this summer with a 6X9 technical camera. With Easter, I'm going for two weeks, but not with the technical camera because it's too short a time. I 'll shoot the city in black and white.<br> I bought the camera (Linhof Technikardan) about a year ago, and I already have a 150 and 65mm lens, going to buy a 47 and a 270. I have room in my backpack for two lenses. <br> No CLA's needed, going to buy some spare things, like a dark slide and a film magazine, also some filters.<br> I spent six weeks in S.F. two years ago, shooting digitally. <br> I figured out how to walk the camera all day without getting tired, basically I have it in a backpack, and every shot I set up and put everything back in the backpack and walk on. <br> Going to Spain with Christmas, I took about eight shots per four hour walk. The results were absolutely fantastic.<br> Getting film here in Belgium (Antwerp) is absolutely no Problem. Photo shop Grobet at the Eiermarkt carries just about everything you can imagine in film and also everything to develop and developing C41 and E6 at their lab is no problem. An 120 film costs about $6, developing also about$6. i do black and white developing myself and scan on an Epson. I'll take 50 to 100 films to S.F. the summer.<br> I have a €2,100 budget for the two remaining lenses and everything else, film included.<br> Dirk. </p> <div></div>

<p>And here's my second F1. It's got 400,000 exposures and works perfectly.</p> <p>I had three F1's but I sold one. Now I've got an absolutely mint one and an entirely brassed one.</p> <p>When I die, I want them molten down and my ashes mixed into the brass.</p> <p>Dirk.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's an F1 with the 14mm L, and Speedfinder. I use the speedfinder all the time.</p> <p>Dirk. </p><div></div>

<p>Here's an enlargement of the shot. The entire film is like this. i don't know if this is dust, but the specks must be black on the neg. <br> Dirk. </p><div></div>

<p>Hi!<br /> My friend Matthias (in Australia) developed his first film.<br /> It has a banded pattern of dust.<br /> Any suggestion of what causes it? Is there anything he can do to not have this any more, like the final rinse in distilled water?<br> There are three bands of dust, not very visible in the shot, one on the top, one in the middle and one on the bottom. <br /> Thank you,</p> <p>Bye,</p> <p>Dirk.</p><div></div>

<p>And his is digital.<br />Interesting thread, but why don't you just shoot?</p> <p>Dirk.</p><div></div>

<p>Film, dying?<br> This is film:</p><div></div>

<p>I have the 17, had the 20. The 17 is better. 3mm wider makes a lot of difference. The 20 wasn't that great optically. Lots of ghosts at night.<br> I suggest you get the 17mm f/4 and the 24mm f/1.4L. The 24L is crazily sharp. I tested it with 14x enlargement on my digital PEN, it's one of the sharpest FD lenses.</p> <p>Dirk.</p>

<p>Just to show you how good this lens is, here's a shot at f/16, 25mm extension tube:</p> <div></div>

<p>Here's a last one:</p><div></div>

<p>The 85mm f/1.2 is an awesome macro lens. Lens imperfections? I couldn't care less.<br> Here's one taken with the 85mm and a 25mm extension tube:</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>Hi! I had the 100mm f/2 and thought it was an incredible lens. Then i got the 85mm f/2. I haven't used the 100 anymore, not even a single shot.<br /> I now shoot it on an Olympus PEN (micro four thirds) I focus extremely accurately by magnifying the viewfinder image.<br /> I shoot a lot of medium format and the bokeh of the 85mm is - well - medium format.<br /> The 135mm f/2 is also fantastic in the bokeh aspect. <br /> <br /> But let's get your GAS on the move and have some photographs!</p><div></div>

<p>Wire release - Check! (forgotten in the past)<br /> Spot light meter - Check! (forgotten in the past)<br /> Five films - Check! (forgotten in the past)<br /> Tripod mounting plate - Check! (forgotten in the past)<br /> Screw for tripod mounting plate - Check! (forgotten in the past)<br /> Coin for screw for tripod mounting plate - Check! (forgotten in the past)<br /> Orange filter - Check! (forgotten in the past)<br /> Dust cloth - Check! (forgotten in the past)<br /> Angle finder - Check! (not forgotten yet as it's the first time I shoot this camera)<br /> Film magazine - Check! (not forgotten yet as it's the first time I shoot this camera)<br /> Oh, yes, Camera - Check! (forgotten in the past)<br /> Ready to shoot tomorrow,</p> <p>Dirk.</p> <p>Oh, yes, I almost forgot, where's my tripod? In the garage I think - Check! (forgotten in the past)</p> <p>Dirk.</p>

<p>Hi, Wouter!<br> You're absolutely right. <br> I figured out that black and white conversion of a JPEG file and using the digital filters made these artifacts. Using a Raw file, DNG converter and CameraRaw and Photoshop made for good results.<br> I'll have to start believing people when they say RAW is better, so far I've always used JPEGs.<br> Hope this post will help people who are in the same situation.</p> <p>My fault. </p> <p>Thanks!</p> <p>Dirk. </p>

<p>Thanks a lot for the help, sorry at my frustration, I'll shoot RAW from now on!</p> <p>Bye,</p> <p>Dirk. </p>

<p>With filtering in Photoshop of the opened CameraRaw image.</p> <div></div>