bruce_mattes

April 18, 2009

Thank you Lex..

April 18, 2009

I am sure that there is a simple explanation to this question, although I cannot seem to figure out how to do it..Simply, how does one remove photos that one has added to one's My Favorites?..

Thanks, Bruce

March 30, 2009

Thanks to all that responded!!..

Sorry it took so long to acknowledge everyone's answers..

Bruce

March 24, 2009

For several months now I have been considering the purchase of a Graflex Pacemaker Speed Graphic press camera..I am leaning towards the 2x3 version, mainly for use in various forms of hand held black and white photography..Probably with a Schneider-Kreuznach Xenotar 80mm f2.8 lens..To those members that have used a Speed Graphic in the traditional hand held way of a press photographer, what are the shutter speeds and f-stop settings that you most commonly employed?..I am guessing that f-stops and shutter speeds have a lot to do with the type of film chosen to shoot with?..

Thanks, Bruce

March 23, 2009

Thanks to everyone for their input..

Dave, that is a very nice photo..I really like it..

If the project works out I will be sure to post photos..

Bruce

March 22, 2009

A lot of people have adapted the Kodak Aero-Ektar 178mm f2.5 WWII aerial reconnaissance lens to use on the 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphic press camera..I have three questions that I am interested in having answered, if that is possible..First, is there a comparable fast large format lens that is adaptable to the smaller 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic camera?..Second, is it possible to adapt modern fast medium format SLR lenses that can cover 6x7 to be used in barrel with the 2x3 Speed Graphic camera?..Third, what is the widest lens that can be used with the 2x3 Speed Graphic cameras?..The use of flash with a modern lens used in barrel is not of great concern to me..

Thanks for any and all responses..

Bruce

March 22, 2009

Cliff

Do you think that something similar could be done to a Pacemaker Speed Graphic 4x5?..

March 14, 2009

I would like to second what Mr. O'keefe-Odom stated in his last post..When the realities of life are realistically looked at with dispassionate eyes, there are very few photographers, amateur or professional, that are eeking every last bit of performance out of their less-than-full-frame cameras, much less those using full-frame cameras..

I can see several areas that would be of benefit in improving..The primary one would be for a digital body priced under $2000.00 to have a very high ISO performance, say ISO 12500 to ISO 25000, with the ISO 100-200 digital noise performance of one of the current flagship bodies..This would allow people practicing many different types of photography to eliminate the need for flash for 80-95% of their work..Then, the on-board flash systems could be designed out of those cameras, both lightening and simplifying them..Sports, wildlife, night, photojournalists, street, just to name a few, photographers would immediately benefit from such high ISO performance..

It is tempting to lust for the latest, and most advanced digital camera with a plethora of lenses to compliment it..As these cameras get bigger, they also grow heavier..The latest FF bodies with a selection of 3-4 zoom lenses, extra batteries, and all of the necessary ancillary gear weighs as much as a good large format camera and its equipment..What the hell is the difference between lugging 15-25 lbs of digital gear around compared to lugging 15-25 lbs. of large format gear around..A pound weighs the same regardless of the format being used, regardless of whether the camera is film or digital..

It seems to me that the latest and greatest full frame digital camera systems have brought the 21st Century photographer full circle, weight wise at least, to exactly where our 19th Century counterparts were at the dawn of photography..

February 21, 2009

Mr. Durer brings up an interesting point..Since 09-11-2001, 131,400 people have been murdered in the United States..Since 09-11-2001, approximately 40,00 people PER YEAR have died in motor vehicle-related deaths for an approximate total of 280,000 plus deaths..In most of those seven years the deaths from motor vehicles is actually greater than 40,000 per year..

Rounding up for the seven plus years that have passed since 9-11, the total number of human deaths in the United States from murders and motor vehicles is in excess of 415,000 people..When one adds in ALL of the other ways that people die in the USA, both natural and human-caused, the number of people that have died in the United States since September 11, 2001 far exceeds 1,000,000..

It is abundantly obvious to anyone that looks objectively at the reality of our lives in the USA that there are literally hundreds of ways that it is more likely to lose one's life than from any form of terrorist attack..Our police forces are, on average, better trained and better equipped, than any other country on the planet..This fact is also true in most other Western countries, even those with more frequent terrorist attacks than in the USA..

February 7, 2009

Gene, you are absolutely right..

My grandmother passed away in mid-November 2008 one week before her 105th birthday..She had virtually no health issues up until the last week of her life, other than memory loss and dementia..She was taking no drugs, the only person in her nursing home to do so..We had her memorial service last weekend..She was the last surviving member of her brothers ans sisters..Is is amazing how few photographs that we had of her, and her family..The ones on display at her service came from many different members of the family, as well asthe children of her friends..

The digital generation is going to wake up one day and realize that electrons in a storage device of some kind is a very ephemeral way to try and archive memories..Something more tangible is to be desired..I am increasingly seeing on various photo forums posts that state that serious digital photographers should have multiple backups, say 3-4, of every digital file that they value stored in multiple places around the United States to try and ensure the files safekeeping..Like I stated on another photography forum, are these people really listening to what they are recommending for people interested in digital photography to do in order to safely archive their memories / work?..Does anyone believe that any of the great film photographers of the past felt it necessary to have 3-4 copies of every negative, positive, and print stored in multiple places around the USA in order to insure their safekeeping?..Of course not!!!!..

Other than controlling the temperature and the humidity of the room in which film negatives, positives, and prints are stored in, and choosing proper archival storage materials with which to store them; there is little to do to insure the long term archiving of such materials..Long term archival storage of digital files is going to require far more of an investment in time and money than the average photographer is going to be willing to put forth..After a couple of years those electrons in their storage devices are going to start deteriorating far more rapidly than will a film negative, positive, or print that is the same age..The end result in many, many cases is going to be nothing more than the memories in peoples brains, nothing tangible to pass along from generation to generation..

February 7, 2009

It never fails to amaze me when photographers are admonished for taking a photgraph in public of a person performing a questionable act..

Any woman that chooses to pull up her skirt in a public place thus exposing her underwear encased buttocks has to have questionable judgement..If the police were going to arrest the photographer, then at the very least, the woman herself should have been arrested for exposing herself in public..You cannot have the second act (photography) without having the first act occur (woman exposing her bottom in panties) that set up the circumstances that allowed the second act to be performed..Where was this woman's modesty?..

What possible difference can there be between dozens, perhaps hundreds of people passing by this woman and viewing her exposed panty-clad buttocks; and in someone capturing that image for posterity in a camera?..The truth is, very little difference..Either way, other human beings were able to look at her exposed bottom unrestricted for as long as they wished..She apparantly did not care if people saw her panty-clad bottom..It was only when her friend told her that she was being photographed that she got upset..Instead of being angry at herself for her questionable behavior that allowed someone to photograph her, she chose to take her anger out on the photographer..If I was the photographer I would have wanted to sue the woman in question as an accomplice to the police stupidity that got the photographer arrested in the first place..She was even more culpable than the NYC police officers were..

February 6, 2009

Thanks to all that answers!!..

A special thanks to Scot for the post and the photo of the flash rig with the Zeiss Nettar 6x9..Scot, is that PC cord, hot shoe adapter specific to the Vivitar flash, or is it a generic cord?..

February 5, 2009

I know that there are a lot of people here on PN that regularly use a folding 35mm, or 120 roll film camera..I know that a large percentage of the shutters that these cameras were equipped with are flash capable..It looks more, and more, as if I am not going to be able to afford a Pentax 67II camera any time in the near future..I am considering the purchase of a re-furbished folding 6x6 or 6x9 camera from certo6..Although flash photography has never been something that I have focused on in my photography, I am curious as to how easy, or how difficult it is to use a flash with these 50-75 year old cameras?..Would any of the members be willing to share their experiences with using a flash unit with a folding camera?..If so, would you please be as specific as possible as to the camera, type of flash (bulb or electronic), the means of triggering the flash, how successful you felt the end results were, and if you felt it was worth the time and trouble to use a flash with an older folding camera?..

Thanks, Bruce

February 4, 2009

Thanks to all that answered..You have given me much to consider..

February 2, 2009

I am interested in the various members opinions here on PN as regards to choosing a stand alone light meter to use with the following cameras..A Pentax MX 35mm film camera ( I own), a Pentax 67II 120 film camera (I hope to own by June), and a Pentax K10D digital camera (I own)..I have never owned a light meter separate from the camera..My primary intended use will be to use a light meter to obtain better photographs (more consistent results) of indoor and outdoor subjects using the two film cameras when loaded with Kodak Tri-X 400 ISO film..I do not know if there is any advantage to using a separate light meter with the K10D, but I thought I would put it in the question just for the hell of it..

I am interested in light meters costing less than $250.00, new or used..If one could give their reasons for suggesting a particular meter it would be appreciated..Ease of use and easily obtainable batteries that do not require fancy machinations to get an older meter to work with modern batteries are also considerations..

Thanks in advance for responding..

January 30, 2009

Pentax 67II body

Pentax AE Pentaprism Finder 67II

Pentax SMC 67 75mm f2.8 AL wide angle lens w/ lens hood

Pentax SMC 67 1.4x & 2x Rear Converters

Pentax 67 Helicoid Extension Tube

Pentax 67 Reverse Adapter 67mm

S.K. Grimes custom-fabricated bayonet-mount 67mm filter ring adapter w/ internal female bayonet lugs to fit the rear bayonet lugs of the 75mm lens when reversed, & external male bayonet lugs to accept a custom-fabricated lens hood

S.K. Grimes custom-fabricated lens hood w/ internal female bayonet lugs, stepped interior, & a petal shape designed for maximum coverage of a reversed 75mm lens

Kirk BL-67II L-Bracket

Kirk AG-1 Accessory Grip

Gitzo GT3541 XLS Carbon Fiber Tripod Legs

Really Right Stuff BH-55 Pro Ball Head

Linhof 55cm Heavy-Duty Cable Release w/ T-Lock

January 29, 2009

Thanks to all for the answers..I will purchase several multi-reel tanks, as well as several single 120 tanks to get started..I will start learning on the single reel tank..Knowing that uniformity and consistency are the key factors in getting the 2 and 4 reel 120 tanks to work well takes a load off my mind..

Thanks again.. Bruce

January 29, 2009

I have looked back through several years of threads here on PN trying to get an answer to the above question, only to find little written on the subject..I see many references in the PN archives to photographers developing 4 to 8 reels of 35mm film in the larger tanks; but little is mentioned of developing 2 to 4 reels of 120 film in those same sized tanks..

My questions are as follows, and apply to the hand processing of 120 black and white film..

Is it best for a beginner to stick with a single 120 reel tank until the basics are mastered?..I am assuming that this is likely the case, but I could use some input from more experienced photographers..

Are there any quirks or problems to consider when developing 120 film in 2-reel, or 4-reel tanks?..I am leaning towards purchasing stainless steel tanks..

I anticipate shooting no more than 5-6 rolls of 120 film through a Pentax 67II camera on any given day..This could change, of course, so the ability of the system I purchase to accommodate developing more than 5-6 rolls of film per day would be a bonus, but not absolutely necessary..

I am considering the purchase of Calumet S.S. tanks, Hewes 120 S.S. reels, and Kindermann plastic lids for the S.S. tanks..After reading many posts here on PN, I have come to the conclusion that the Calumet tanks, the Hewes reels, and the Kindermann lids will make the best long-term, least problematic investment for me..

When purchasing a tank with a capacity greater than a single reel, does the tank come equipped with the lift rod?..Or, is the lift rod an additional purchase?..The product descriptions regarding daylight film developing tanks on various photography websites (Adorama, B&H, Calumet, Freestyle) is not clear on this..

One last question..Does any member have any experience with the Calumet 7" or 13" tubular plastic Roll Film Washers?..These seem like a reasonable choice for a film washer for beginner like me, but I cannot find much written on the web about them..

Thanks for answering my questions..

Bruce

January 8, 2009

Why not call Paramount and have them make you what you want?

http://www.paramountcords.com/

December 31, 2008

I believe that I read some place that the 1 designations were some kind of an improvement to the locking mechanism in the legs..Might be wrong, but that is what I remember..Cannot remember where I read that..

December 30, 2008

Cool!!!

Thanks for the info

December 30, 2008

I see the body keys for the Pentax 6x7 series of cameras occasionally listed for sale at KEH..

Can someone please explain to me exactly what these two little tools are used for?..

I never see these mentioned here at PN in posts regarding Pentax 6x7, 67, or 67II cameras, so is it safe to assume (dangerous, I know) that these keys are not all that necessary?..

Or, are they?..

Thanks, Bruce

December 29, 2008

Thank You!!! Thank You!!! Thank You!!! To everyone that took the time to answer..

A special thanks to Mr. Wisniewski for the primer on photo microscopy..This is exactly the kind of information I was looking for..I am going to bookmark this thread for future reference..When will your book be available for purchase?..Sometime soon, I hope?..

As regards to my using a Pentax 67II camera on a Nikon rig similar to the one you described, "Is this possible?"..Or, would a "calmer", less vibration-prone medium format camera be in order?..Multiple brands of medium format cameras are not possible from a financial standpoint at the present..

Insects, coins, and other similar objects would be my initial focus as regards to photo microscopy..After I learned on these types of objects I would also be interested in photographing much smaller objects that would require slide mounting..I was always interested in biology in school..

In the back of my mind before starting this thread I had the crazy idea to take interesting 6x7 color slides through a microscope that could be projected for viewing..I fully understand how ambitious of an undertaking this is..I just wanted to know if it was at all possible, particularly if it could be accomplished with the Pentax 67II camera?..

Thanks again to all that responded!!!..

Bruce

December 28, 2008

I am interested in knowing if it is possible to use medium format film cameras to take photographs through a microscope?..

I have done some basic research on the web, but find little published regarding using a medium format camera for photo microscopy..

I understand that digital cameras and 35mm film cameras are the standards for this type of photography..

When I get my Pentax 67II camera later this year I am interested in occasionally using it to take photos of larger 3-dimensional objects such as dead insects, coins, minerals, etc..

To this end I would purchase an inexpensive used trinocular microscope with which to use..

It is my thinking to attach the 67II camera directly to the microscope without a lens..

I am well aware of using macro lenses for this type of work, so please do not suggest this..

I am interested in other types of microscopy in addition to what I have described above, so if it is possible to use the 67II for this type of photography; then this would be the learning microscope for the more difficult types of microscopy..

A way of getting my feet wet, so to speak..

If it is not possible to use the 67II camera for this type of photography, then I will just shelve the idea of photo microscopy for the time being..

Any, and all suggestions would be greatly appreciated, especially any books that you might suggest to read..

Thanks in advance for your help in answering these questions..

Bruce

December 27, 2008

The longer tripod is more versatile..It will allow you to place the leg (s) at a greater number of differing heights w/o having to bend over as far to look through your camera's viewfinder..

I am in the market to upgrade my Giottos MT 9360 aluminum tripod..I purchased the Really Right Stuff BH-55 ball head at the same time that I purchased the Giottos..I knew at the time that I could not afford both the tripod and the ball head that I wished to own..I chose to spend more on the ball head, as at the time I did not require the greater stiffness and load bearing capacity of the Gitzo carbon fiber tripod that I really wanted..Now, several years later, I am able to afford the Gitzo..My needs in a tripod are also increasing as, if all goes well in 2009, I will be purchasing a Pentax 67II medium format camera that demands a better tripod than the Giottos..

I intend to purchase the Gitzo GT3541 XLS carbon fiber tripod legs..Initially, I was leaning towards the Gitzo GT3540 XL, since upgraded to the GT3541 XL..Two years of tripod use has shown me that there is no substitute for height when a photographer truly needs it..I am 5 ft. 9 in. tall, and I still will be purchasing the GT3541 XLS instead of the GT3541 XL..With the Pentax 67II camera I will benefit in average usage situations as the XLS tripod when extended to my normal height will offer greater stiffness and vibration dampening than the shorter XL tripod..This is due to a greater amount of the legs being within one another at shorter height requirements..

I am 54 years old and am currently in the worst shape of my life, weighing more than I ever have..My intentions are to lose weight and exercise in order to bring my body into line with the greater weight of my intended tripod purchase..I too have been worrying about the weight of a heavier tripod than I originally intended to purchase..I finally decided that I could no longer indulge myself by overeating and not exercising as I have been doing for the past several years..The Pentax 67II camera and its complimentary lenses weigh considerably more than my Pentax K10D dSLR..They, and the Gitzo tripod, are going to demand a much fitter photographer than I currently am if I am going to enjoy the purchase..

Purchase the longer tripod..I do not think you will regret having the extra height available at hand..It will allow you to think outside of your current photographic box by opening up camera angles that you can not take advantage of with a shorter tripod..

Good luck with your decision!!!!

Bruce

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by bruce_mattes