Jump to content

Argenticien

Members
  • Posts

    251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Argenticien last won the day on August 26 2013

Argenticien had the most liked content!

Reputation

5 Neutral
  1. I tend to write down exposure notes with pen and paper on most medium format work, and of course in my very infrequent outings with large format. Even with medium format (8 or 12 frames per roll, as I own no 6x4.5 gear), it's almost too much work. For small format, I'll usually at best write down general notes like "#1 - 19: 50/1.4; #20-37: 28/2.8" or "#15-25 mostly 1/500ish, f/2.8ish", and make exposure notes only on specific very challenging frames where I'm keen to have the exact facts when looking at the negative/picture later. (How else to learn and improve?) I've thought of using something like ExifNotes instead of pen and paper, but the barriers for me include risk of fumbling phone, possibility of dead phone battery, tedious need to unlock phone between frames if greater than my screen lockout time, etc., so I continue with notebooks -- mostly plain blank Field Notes ones, but someone gave me the gift of a few PhotoMemo ones recently. On MF & LF images, I then use Phil Harvey's EXIF Tools (mentioned above), plus some code I wrote myself to run atop it, to encode the camera, lens, ISO/ASA, aperture, and shutter speed from my handwritten notes onto the image files. And I'm not even a young person. --Dave
  2. Nice pictures for a high school level of (in)experience, Mike. I was not taking anything that good at that age. I am a bit younger so only remember the tail end of the 1970s, and only as a little kid, but even so I also partook of the sartorial mischief of that decade. I remember learning as a toddler the first rule of dressing oneself is "don't wear stripes and plaid." I suspect that rule is not top of mind these days as we are no longer wearing acres of plaid. Or maybe I should say hectares. I note the display introducing unwitting Americans to the metric system! That clearly did not take hold here. I'm also noticing that your high school was somewhat integrated at that time. Was that a big deal and controversial at the time, in Mississippi? Do you know if that is still so, or was perhaps somewhere around your tenure the high-water mark for that? (That is, between the original segregation 1.0 and today's segregation 2.0, being the result of the Big Sort?) I know things are moving backward toward the bad old ways in a lot of places today, including where I am. --Dave
  3. In my experience, albeit much more limited than that of others here, one can get that tonality with any proper medium format camera & lens (so, that excludes your Holga) with proper film (so, that excludes flagrantly expired or some Lomo emulsions) with proper exposure. I've done so with sizes between 6x6 and 6x9 (admittedly not 6x4.5 myself) and cameras from Bronica, Rollei, Voigtlander, Zeiss-Ikon, and Mamiya at least (probably forgetting some others). I don't know exactly how tight your tight budget is, but if it's dire, consider also the fact that 6x9 cameras guzzle film at twice the rate that 6x4.5 ones do, so that will double your film and processing costs (if the number of pictures you make were held equal, which is not automatically the case). You also spend a lot of time reloading with 6x9, especially since there is no more 220 film, and many older 6x9 cameras (folders etc.) couldn't use it anyway. --Dave
  4. I have got one of these. It's fun to pass around and shoot as entertainment at a party or in the pub. That seems to be mostly the use Fuji's own Instax cameras as well, which of course use the same film. I would never entrust a once-in-a-lifetime shooting opportunity to any camera armed with Instax film, of course. That said, if you're going to shoot Instax at all, the InstantFlex does it better, since it has full manual aperture and focus, unlike most (all?) of Fuji's own cameras, and seemingly a somewhat better lens. Given the InstantFlex is a mostly plastic beast, the fit and finish are surprisingly good. You want the Mark II model, which has a much improved focusing screen. I have a Mark I, but got the available focusing screen upgrade. The original screen was so dim that it significantly impaired indoor use. I don't closely follow Mint's plans, but I'd be surprised if they make a digi version of this camera. Their whole business appears to be based on fanatical instant film enthusiasm. They were doing Polaroid retrofits/rebuilds before they started making the InstantFlex. --Dave
  5. You've not got space for enough film amongst the foam in that faux-Pelican case, Rick. :) Semi-seriously: I don't know if you have any of those Japan Camera Hunter five-roll 120 cases, but if you don't, I'd quite recommend them. Carrying one of those is more space-efficient than five film boxes, stops unboxed films rolling around like they can do if stored loose in a camera bag (granted, not a problem with your foam case), and serves as a nice light-tight storage (if you get the case in black) for exposed rolls whose wrappers have been binned. Seriously: superb pictures. --Dave
  6. I've actually found that the BetterScanning ANR glass for 120 can successfully pin down a most curly negatives, but the 35mm one is not heavy enough (simply because it's a smaller piece of glass) to weigh down moderately to ridiculously curly negs. The obvious solution is to flatten the negs first for days under a pile of books, but sometimes you need or "need" to scan negs straight away just after they've dried. In such case, I find the Epson OEM holders with clip-in frames can better tame the curliest ones. (This is a V700 I'm talking about.) --Dave
  7. Ross, those Point Lobos pictures are great. I have photographed that very same Pinnacle (as have millions I guess), but in my case with an octogenarian 6x9 Bessa rangefinder. (Small subset from that and a Mamiya C330 at Big Sur, Oct. 2010 ). What you've done with the ND filter to enable the long exposure is superb. It is indeed exceedingly difficult to convey the grandeur of the cypress or redwood trees around Big Sur ... unless maybe with a swing-lens pano camera used vertically, or something odd like that. I really must get back to contributing to these weekly threads. I have a large backlog of processing, scanning, and organizing to do, and not enough time to do it in! --Dave
  8. This sounds like a possible way to get more use out of the battery Kludge that I built for my semi-working, quasi-reliable example of a Yashica Electro. I use a PX28, but I think that may literally be four button cells with a wrapper around them anyway. Meanwhile it appears that your Minox lens does not fall too short of the legendary Yashica one, but in a much more compact and light package for those days when one doesn't need f/1.7. Hmmmmm... --Dave
  9. Wow. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, bordering on naïve, but it never even occurred to me to steal the work of a tourism photographer by snapping a mobile phone picture of his picture that's for sale for $10, instead of buying it. I don't know whether the tourist is within his rights under copyright law to snap a photo of that photo (since it's his own likeness), but in a way I don't really care; even if it's technically legal, it's extremely poor form. As an aside: I've never bought such a photo either, because they're usually very cheesy, but that's a different issue and no justification for stealing the work! The most recent one I declined to buy was at the battleship Missouri in Pearl Harbor. There they photograph tourists in front of a green screen and then superimpose the boat behind them in post. I thought that was quite silly (beneath the dignity of the historic setting), plus I looked like Hell in my picture, since it was a warm, humid day and I had already been lugging around medium-format kit for hours. --Dave
  10. There are a number of things funny about that top plate. Were people not meant to make pictures November through February? At what nursery can I buy a bright tree? Would the exposure for an individual by the window be different to that for a group? And finally, what a flagrant case of hemispherism! Oughtn't they have made that exposure table panel with the Northern Hemisphere advice printed on one side and Southern on the other, with the panel reversible by the user? ;) --Dave
  11. I understand conceptually, Rick. I had to consult a map and figure out that you're at about the 41st parallel (south). If I've done this right, in Northern Hemisphere terms that's similar to somewhere between New York City and Boston in USA, or around Oporto or somewhere between Rome and Naples, in Europe. I've lived near New York and Boston, and the light there can get a bit low and harsh in the dead of winter, though not polar-like low. I shall have to sample that NZ light some year to see how it compares, given as you say the different terrain and climate despite the similar latitude. --Dave
  12. Rick, meaning no disparagement, to me those do look a bit flat (although I suppose some foreshortening is expected with a 105mm) and harsh (high-ish contrast, not a lot of midtones). I'm inclined directly toward putting that down to the camera since this is a combination of film, dev, and scan that you frequently use to good effect, and you've tackled worse lighting situations before. If all that reasoning is correct, then indeed I would agree with you that the Ross Xpres lens is not all it's touted to be. Composition-wise I like what you've done, and you've clearly got some impressive trees to work with down there. --Dave
  13. All the below are with Pentax MX + SMC Pentax 50/2 lens, Ilford FP4+ through Rodinal, Epson V700 scans. These are from a few weeks ago, the first test roll with a new-to-me camera. The lens is one that I got a few years ago as a body cap on a Pentax ME. When I first received it, I gave it a quick test on digital and found it awful compared to my Takumar 50/1.4 lens. Upon trying it again, I see it may actually be not so bad... --Dave Have a Dog Gone Good Day by Argenticien, on Flickr Nuts and Bolts by Argenticien, on Flickr Tea Tins at Waterbean Coffee by Argenticien, on Flickr
  14. Now I have photos to hand. One from the Super and one of it. --Dave Nice bikes, offensive helmets by Argenticien, on Flickr IMGP5613_50 by Argenticien, on Flickr
  15. I have a Super Ikonta C (531/2), the 6x9 coupled rangefinder model. It's a really nice, if slow and contemplative, compact medium format travel camera. I'd recommend it if you can be sure you're getting a serviceable one. Mine came to me in good nick other than a lot of haze(? -- or other old schlock) between lens elements, which was easily cleaned out; and very minor bellows pin-holes that were easily fixed with black paint. The albada finder is only slightly dim, so quite usable. I second Robert Marvin's assessment that it is mildly difficult with spectacles, which bump into it and tend to tilt the rear half forward, which makes the lines less visible. At least on my camera, the lens (Tessar 105/3.5) is very good, in fact amazingly good if you consider that it's 80 years old. This camera and its complicated coupled rangefinder must have been considered superb technology when new in '37 (the year mine was built, per a serial number lookup). --Dave
×
×
  • Create New...