kjgriffin

<p>I've had my best results with the simplest approach: meter the orange bands near the horizon as mid-grey and be done with it. This prevents these brilliant (to the eye) colors from being blown out and they show up on the transparency with nice saturation. As mentioned above, any slide film won't have much exposure latitude. This has given me some nice silhouettes, but I'd have to go earlier in the evening to get enough light for the foreground without blowing out the sunset. Good luck!</p><div></div>

<p>For me, there would be more activation energy required if I had to fly to get there, especially if photography were not the main purpose of the trip. Once in a car, there is very little reason not to bring the 4x5. Aside from the different media that result, I capture very different images with my view camera in comparison to the quick shots with the digicam. That's more a reflection on myself than the equipment, but I'm much happier with the results when I bring along the extra bag. Also important for this area is to remember to bring lots of water. It's not death valley, but it's still hot and sunny, and often a long way from civilization. </p>

<p>Thanks to all the above for the interesting discussion. I have just a few things to add. I must admit, I've never used (nor seen results of) a scanning back on a 4x5. Even if not available yet, I can conceive of a digital imaging device that could produce 'better' images than film. Sadly, I also expect the day will come when film is unavailable and I have no other options. When that day comes, some of us will use digital for some things (even as now)..... and some of us will go back to coating wet plates in an orange tent.</p>

<p>I spend too much of my workday in front of computers, rather than with people or at the lab bench. Often, the *last* thing I want to do on my time off is to plant myself back in front of a monitor, such as each of us is doing right now. In those spare moments when I have time to do so, the tangible nature of working with solutions, film, light, and my hands gives my brain a chance to function in different ways. I'll also concur with the folks mentioning the continuing utility of cameras older than us with nary an upgrade. </p>

<p>Finally on trolls: while this may be an artifact of my lurking only in virtual places focused on film (pardon the pun), I've yet to see a digital vs. film 'discussion' started by the analog folks stating that all digital is bunk; the converse is not so true, in my experience. </p>

<p>Best wishes to all, in all your various media, for the new year.</p>

<p>Kurt Griffin<br>

Tucson, AZ</p>

 

I bought this kit from Badger as my entry into LF. I had a similar question about the lens (Rodenstock Sironar-N), and they

were happy to swap it out for the the Sironar-S for the difference in cost between the lenses. I've been very happy with this

set up.

I have the L-558 which gives me dots on a scale of either time or f/ stop whether I'm

using incident or spot metering. I use it that way routinely and have been very happy

with this meter.

 

--Kurt

<div></div>

I've been watching ePay for "cheap" Type 55. Perhaps I should say, I've been watching

others overpay (IMHO). Given the choice between paying $65 for something that expired a

decade ago (but is thought to have been stored correctly) and $75-80 for fresh film, I feel

more comfortable with the latter.

 

I was thinking today that it might be different if I were being paid for my shots.... then I

put in terms of I'm already paying for it myself. It just isn't worth the risk to save 50 cents

per shot. I already have plenty of other ways to foul up the image that are within my

control.

 

Happy shooting!

 

--KJG