frank uhlig

<p>So why the 8x ND? Could you have lowered the ISO to get exposure at f/1.1? (What is the max shutter speed on the RD1 is what I am wondering about.)</p>

<p>Looks like you might not have camera and paper parallel ... to each other. Hard to do with such a wide angle lens; a cm off might give that result.</p>

<p>Have you got a hold of the manual? I would read it cover to cover for about 2 weeks off and on and reread in 2 months etc. Then things will become clearer to you.</p>

<p>Yep, winter closure across the top of Yosemite may hold you up until May, depending on when the snow melts. Maybe look at Y's website or call the rangers in Mid-April ... Good luck and views to you.</p>

<p>It is just that simple geometry is dead as is most of our education system. Nobody knows, or can visualize how a camera works nowadays.</p>

<p>Optics = blind, blank stares, ... . Sorry.</p>

<p>It is really just simple geometry: get out your ruler, paper and pencil; draw the width of your film gate (w); put a dot on the perpendicular bisector of that film representation at the focal distance (f); connect the ends of the film through the focal point, continue the lines until min lens focus distance (flmin) ahead. Now measure the width (wsubject) of your image there. If you recall the law of proportions, the equation for this is wsubject = (w * flmin)/f. Now be careful of your units: all in cm or all in mm, please. And convert to inches if you dare.</p>

<p>So if w = 5.7 cm, f = 9 cm, flmin = 70 cm (say), then your max subject width is wsubject = 5.7*10/9 = 44 cm, edge to edge onto 120 film.</p>

<p>Of course you can always drive to the end of the paved roads and walk up the trails of various canyons that eventually lead up to Mt. Wilson etc for rocky desert surroundings (beware of touching the cacti, very painful, and the chaperell is also quite unforgiving to your skin ...) and hike up an hour into the wilderness north of Altadena, Pasadena, Sierra Madre, ... and find solitude, albeit with occasional surprise visitors that pass by ... . But that may well exceed the 45 min access time limit of yours ...</p>

<p>From almost any part of LA it will take you almost those 45 minutes to get to any other part. And from many parts of LA it will take you well over an hour to get out of LA.</p>

<p>Your quest does not make much sense, in my book. Unless you consider shooting on someone's "private property". Or take a day trip to get away from it all. Just look at a road map, please.</p>

<p>I guess, edge "distortion" is not distortion at all, just the way the laws of geometry and physics work when we project a wide scene via a wide angle lens onto the film/sensor plane. Simple cartography and maps of the earth show the same "thing". Natural, unavoidable .. So back off and do not place your beloved in the corner or near the corner if you please.</p>

<p>And let us not call this natural geometric feature of a flat plane lens "dist ...". That would be an oxymoron any day.</p>

<p>I just walked outside; it is noon, gray sky with snow falling: pointed up towards the sky in incidence mode: EV 13 1/3; pointed down at the wet concrete (about middle gray) it gave me EV 12 2/3.<br>

So for general scenery this means EV 13 is quite right.</p>

<p>So then I aimed at a dark green bush (not snow covered): EV10. And under the canopy of the bush it needs 3 stops more light .... If I aim straight at the white snow in reflective mode, it will indicate a much shorter exposure (higher exposure value) to darken the white snow to become gray in the pic.</p>

<p>It is not about old manual cameras here, but about lightmeter readings and techniques. Read up on that, please.</p>

<p>The Minolta can surely be used in incidence mode. Try that! Otherwise use the sunny 16 rule and open up one stop because snow in the sun is just a wee bit brighter.</p>

<p>Can you verbalize what you are unhappy with. Your b+w across the park looks nice to me ...</p>

<p>Well I looked at the poll earlier and thought it was standard and a bit shallow, so I gave up on it. Sorry.</p>

<p>As an artist, as artists, would we want to be caught telling how many conventional methods of our art we use? Is not our endeavor to seek new ways to see, to interpret, and to show.</p>

<p>I guess the poll has no relevance for me then. Sorry. Just to let you know ... of the bad bias in your set-up ...</p>

<p>I simply made my own out of two 35mm cans: cut the bottom off one, smooth the edge, slide into the other, adjust height. Wrap tape once around where the two meet, put film in, snap lid on: good to go for years. Cost = 0, AND no shipping charges Period</p>

<p>Ok Mark,</p>

<p>googling for mamiya 7 and clicking on B+H and then on the 80mm f/4 lens for the 7ii gives you its min focusing distance as 1m (metric).</p>

<p>Does that answer your first and second rant/question?</p>

<p>And if you prefer a more common portrait lens for the 7ii, the 150 mm f/4.5 focuses down to 1.8m as per the Mamiya website.</p>

<p>Looking for at the minimal image areas depicted on film, you will get about 70 by 90 cm, which is ok for head and shoulders, but not very tight. (inch measures are also at at the Mamiya site)</p>

<p>Good luck! And especially with googleing! And interpreting simple optics measurements. You seem to have been an old pro (nice, no: superb images at your website ... you took those?). What happened?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What you need is less pollution, more electric cars, fewer people, shorter driving distances ...</p>

<p>And I cannot see how that can be achieved by a simple filter on one (= your) lens ...</p>

<p>Why are your depictions of your reality = smog not usable? You live in this part of the globe, you muck it up, now enjoy what is done around you by you and others.</p>

<p>In parts of China there is nay any smog free day. You may visit Bejing, Shanghai, Xian etc for weeks and not get to see more than maybe the length of 2 football fields clearly, if that far.</p>

<p>Postcard views (clear, pristine views) normally were taken decades ago (or on one of the 1 in 10,000 lucky days that still happen occasionally ...), just buy one card and check the buildings depicted ... and missing)</p>

<p>Smog, unfortunately, is part of our life now. Enjoy and depict!</p>

<p>When deciding on which way to hold the camera, I wonder if I would like to have the lens look at the scene a bit more from the left or right. That settles the question in each case differently.</p>

<p>I even flip my camera over occasionally if I needed the lens higher up than my cheek, even with SLRs.</p>

<p>Use all you have got to vary and do not give in to routine: always such and such is bad practice!</p>

<p>Yes Bruce, your digiwizz camera can do that, but not a Hasselblad. (Medium format forum!)</p>

<p>Yes, I always try to err on the long side with long exposures, never even think of cutting a bulb exposure short. So that is why I thought of 1 sec off = a fraction of a stop long = insignificant re reciprocity failure. And unfortunately clocks/watches/ ... by themselves do not work too well when it is dark enough to need multisecond exposures. And then only the numbers count in my head works.</p>

<p>I have never witnessed a failure of proper exposure due to loosing count ... And I do take my brain with me when I photograph: So I have no need for another gadget at all, other than tripod and light meter.</p>

<p>If you are off in your timing a 4 sec shot by 1 sec (pretty sloppy counting 21 .. 22 .. 23 ... 24 in my book), then your exposure will be off by 1/4 of a stop. Now even modern cameras get only about 1/3 of a stop correct exposure and shutters/ aperture settings etc are never that accurate anyway ..... Thus you will see no difference on the film, or hardly any. Besides the Schwarzschild effect (long exposures) is also only so-so accurately predicted on the film data sheet.</p>

<p>So: do not worry is my advice. Too small of an error to try to fix. Irrelevant.</p>

<p>Thanks Sam. But these adapters stick out quite a bit. I have seen them ... knew about them. Looking for a one piece compact item ...</p>

<p>I am looking for a mechanical shutter cable release (screw-in type) whose tip has a right angle, i.e., does not push out its little tip straight, but rather at a right angle to the cable direction.</p>

<p>I did see one somewhere recently but cannot recall where and searching via google and on the bay did not reproduce what I had once seen. Anyone know about one? The one I saw was, I think vinyl covered with a crooked 90 degree front tip ... Thanks!</p>

<p>This is an expensive and hard to do well excursion for you. The tougher the task the more you go, yes? Great!</p>

<p>But for us blow-abouts, we get an SLR, focusing rail, tripod, etc and maybe even reversing rings and go down to 4 times magnification with ease. You will be left behind financially, result wise, and unhappy when straining the use of RF into areas it just cannot go.</p>

<p>Same with real long tele-photography and RF. Visoflex or not ... But sure, it has been done, so has Mount Everest been climbed. More power to you!@</p>

<p>The only clear flare I see is at the bow (top) of the row boat.</p>

<p>Come on Michael. no permission needed ever on US streets, faces, recognizable or not.</p>

<p>Except when you sell your pic for commercial use ... advertising etc .. Then you need to pay the subjects or get a release from them if you are cheap ... For art, www, publications, exhibitions etc : nothing, nada.</p>

<p>Well, if you had a rangefinder camera, the vibration issue would be gone. But as long as you use a camera with mirror and inherent mirror slap, you need to damp those vibrations and the best way is via wooden tripods, the next worse is via carbon fiber ones and the worst is via aluminum tripods. Simply a function of the material resonance. Your bank account will force you to make compromises, I assume.</p>

<p>But this is not a hoax, but simple mechanical engineering principles at work.</p>