cj_bas

The Fuji rangefinders do indeed have superb optics and are very dependable cameras. I use one almost exclusively.

 

HOWEVER, their linses are fixed, not interchangable. Anyone accustomed to a dslr with a zoom lens would probably find a fixed-lens rf not at all what they are looking for in an MF camera.

"Modern Classics" sounds like a good idea. In that category would fall the Fuji, fully manual, 120 rangefinder cameras. I doubt anyone would argue against their being considered classics of some sort, even though some are still being made.

 

As for a 1970 cutoff date; does that mean a camera that was bade prior to 1970? Or does it mean a model that was intruduced prior to 1970? The Yashica 124-G and the Pentas Spotmatics, I believe, fall in that overlapping category (as, I'm sure, do a lot of other worthy cameras.

If you would like to try that developer - in a FRESH batch - and/or get a data sheet, try Photographers' Formulary. I believe they sell the chemicals that would allow you to mix some up yourself. And on their web site you can read instruction for mixing and usung before you buy.

I also prefer longer shutter speeds with moving water, John. Rather than freezing the water it gives the impression of movement.

 

I have a 4x5 Crown Graphic w/ 135 Xenar. Those are great cameras. Yes, someone can shoot 100 digitals in the time it takes me to shoot 1 with the CG. But my 1 will be better than all 100 digitals.

 

A word aboutr exposure: For years I've been taking ambient readings rather than reflected and it never steers me wrong. That is using the white globe over the meter's sensor and reading the light falling on the subject rather than the light reflected off of the subject.

 

Instructions will tell you to walk up to the subject and point the meter back at the camera, which will work. But with landscapes and most street scenes I just point the meter over my shoulder to take a reading. If the light falling on me is the same as the light falling on the scene I'm shooting, the the reading will be identical.

I have several 'classic' cameras taht weren't classic when I got them but just became classic over the years. It's difficult to find film cameras nowadays that are solid, fully mechanical, and yet affordable without turning to the 'classics'.

I'm sure that you are all correct that most people do not buy original photographs to display as art in their homes. Those who do probably do so for decor and mainly consider how well it will go with their room.

 

However, the following print - shot on 120 film and printed to 16x20 - never stays on display very long before it sells (usually for around $650). I knew it was probably very good when I shot it. When I made the first 8x10 straight print I knew it could become an excellent photograph (the actual lighting was flat, the entire scene being evenly lit with the same density as the statue).

 

I know why I think it is a fine photograph. But I do not know why it sells.<div></div>

Probably somewhere between 5 and 10%. I mainly shoot 120, using a fully manual camera, so that slows me down and has me thinking more carefully about what I'm doing. Often I'll shoot a negative knowing that's not what I really want, in hopes of getting what I really want later but having that second best in hand just in case. I do not consider anything I've shot to be wasted however.

 

I do my best editing when some time has elapsed between me and the shooting of the negative. Then I can approach it as if it wasn't me who shot it and I can look at it more objectively.

 

If I can come away with averaging 1 or 2 shots on a roll of 15 exposures that I like, then I think I'm doing pretty good, especially considering how many that mounts up to over the years.

Thanks for that info, Larry. I'll get a few 100' rolls and stash them away. But most of my work is done in 120, and I don't think there's any of that available any more.

Does anyone have any experience with these films ineither ofthese developers?

If so I'd appreciate your thoughts. For years I used Agfa B&W films in FG-7

and found them a perfect combination, with he 400 speed film tared at 200 and

the 100 speed at 80.

 

I'm almost out of my supply of Agfa films. I used Ilford prior to Agfa and was

never really satisfied with them, although they were adequate. Fuji filsm have

been recommended to me.

 

I do a lot of shooting inharsh sunlight and liked slowing down the Agfa films

in FG-7 because it still gave me sparkling highlights and mid tones while

giving great shadow detail as well. I'm hoping to find a combination that will

duplicate that.

 

Any comments and/or advice anyone may have will be appreciated.

 

thanks.

Allen Herbert, if you're going to be embarrassed by having your actions made public - and obviously your are - then perhaps you should think before acting in the future.

The solution is fairly simple and can be done without digital retouching.

 

Rate you film 1/4 normal. That is, if you usually expose that film at 400, expose it at 100. Then reduce development by 65-75%. If this would result in development times shorter than 4 or 5 minutes, reduce the strength of the developer to get up back up to a usable development time.

 

And, use a compensating developer; Rodinal, FG-7, HC-110, or similar.

 

You will be giving ample exposure to your dark room, but holding back on the development of the bright window. The compensating developer will stop acting on the bright window while still developing the dark room.

 

Taking this method to further extremes can alolow you to photograph a night scene, with the light source in the scene (street lights etc.) and get details in the shadows and mid tones without the highlights blooming.

I have heard, from other sources, of this film having p;roblems with pinholes. I'm wondering if it was a matter of the film not being properly coated with the emulsion in the manufacturing process. If that's the case, there is nothing that can be done to correct it in development.

David, isn't acetic acid the most common type of stop bath? (I don't know, I really am asking.) Would you recommend just using a water stop bath?

That sounds like the digital equivalent of IMAX, which is a truly stunning way of presenting a motion picture. It may be $17k now, but that's far less than the first color video tape recorders were. The price of equivalent machines will come down.

 

And it will result in more pictures ofthe kids at Christmas, birthday parties, pets, vacations, etc., just as other advances in photographic equipment have done. Auto-focus and auto-exposure hardly ended photography, but rather made it more available to more people. It has always been a rather egalatarian art form, and will only get more so.

Regarding, "Piss Christ"; regardless of any assurances by Maplethorp, could that not be a photo of a crucifix is a bucket of water? Without the name affixed to it, would it have been so infuriating to so many people?

 

Was it really the words, and not the photo itself, that aroused such indignation?

-------- email from photo.net -------------

 

This is to alert you that photo.net has provided this email address to another photo.net member, Allen Herbert, whose email address is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

 

----------------------

 

Thanks for the heads up, photo.net. I'm sure any use to which this information is put will be both playful and humorous..

Like I said (err)"

 

"I slso notice that when those people are subjected to the very same treatment they have subjected others to, they don't find it nearly so 'playful' or humorous. "

 

err

Just an observation; but I've never heard anyone who was abusive admit to being abusive. "Playful good humor" is invariably ALWAYS what they call their own behavion.

 

I slso notice that when those people are subjected to the very same treatment they have subjected others to, they don't find it nearly so 'playful' or humorous.

 

Just an observation.

Fred, I'm sure you got a good photograph in less time that you got a good performance on the piano. Photography is the most egalatarian of art forms. Anyone with a camera can get a good photograph, and any camera that functions is just right for making some sort of photograph.

 

There's a lot that can be learned. You can learn how to light. You can look for the light that is already there.

 

The initial art that is in photography is accomplished or reached before the camera is even brought into play. It's a matter of seeing or conceivingof what you want to photograph. Everything beyond that is a matter of operating the equipment correctly.

Fred, you can see a few of my photos here.

 

No. It takes a lot more skill to play a musical instrument than to operate a camera.

 

I never equated shooting a photograph with giving a musical performance or writing a musical composition. I compared experiencing the two, not creating the two.

The old adage: Look on ebay. I've seen slip on filter adapters for old cameras, as well as old filters in od sizes, for sale on there every time I've looked.

 

My common shooting practice, by the way, is to use a hand held meter and keep a filter on teh camera most of the time. I never meter through the filter, just make the appropriate adjustment. But I do it by setting the film speed on the meter to begin with: If I'm rating the film at 100 and using a yellow filter, I set the meter to 50. If using an orange filter, I set the meter to 25. If using a red filter, to 12.5.

I wouldn't sell it either. I'd use it, especially since you just got a thorough overhaul done on it and know it is running like a top.

 

Those are excellent cameras, and in that condition are great users. Negatives made with that will be as good asnegatives made from any modern 6x6 camera.

My 4x5 Crown Graphis w/135 f:4.7 Xenar. I know it's not rare, probably not even 'collectable'. But it sure is usable. Slow in getting ready to shoot, of course, but not much slower than any other camera of its period. Once the exposure is set, fhr film ready and in place, and the focus set, it shoots as fast as any modern fully automatic 35. But, good lord, what a negative.

 

I paid about $140 for it about 30 years ago and have never regreted the purchase. Any modern hand held 4x5 camera would run 10x that.

 

My second choice would be my century old 8x10 Agfa-Ansco (yep, chery and brass). I started to sell it a few years ago but my bro-in-law so vociferously objected that I changed my mind. He was right in that, had I sold it, I'd never have such a camera again.

The very act of shooting a photograph is an act of manipulation. The photograph is not, and cannot, be the reality it represents. It is an abstraction. But we lost sight of what is representational and the represented all the time. We think the words we say are the things they symbolize and forget how far from reality that idea is every day.