martin_davidson

I schlepped a Mamiya 6 round India for 4 weeks last Spring. Fabulous! Although only using 120, I found the light perfect for these slightly slow lenses; and that Indian airports could be badgered into letting you take film round the Xray, though only on the internal flights (Delhi, Chennai, Bangalore, and Calcutta airports, to be precise). Just what you will get with a 43mm wide-angle, on 6x7 -- makes my knees go weak!!

The other advantage the X-Pan has over MF cropped, is much closer

focusing. Cant wait to see one.

I've now read three reviews, two in the UK and one in the German press. Sounds beautiful, a camera for the G2 and M6 brigade who know they want to do landscape rather than candids, and therefore dont mind the f/4 lenses (and the need to use a tripod for the panoramics). But, as the reviews pointed out, panorama colour prints will require labs to adopt the right masks, and as slides, they will hard to project.

 

<p>

 

The articles are also talking about a very attractive price (vis a vis the G2 and M6, at any rate)of about 1200 UK pounds for body plus standard lens; and the 90 retailing for 3-400 pounds. However, one dealer I spoke to said this was very optimistic, by a factor of a good few hundred pounds. He reackoned 1500 for the basic package was more likely. All is speculation till the end of the month!

A Mamiya 6 (even smaller than the 7 thanks to the collapsible lens mount) loaded with Velvia, with other two lenses in a bum bag -- I find this perfectly portable when mountaineering. A Leica Minizoom in the bumbag loaded with 400 colour neg for the album shots... Hardly notice it. A stabiliser belt though is worth its weight in gold.

There is a beautiful book called ELEMENTS by bw photographer Barry Thornton, a guide to the taking and printing of fine art monochrome prints. The pics are fabulous, and the advice, though technical, very interesting. (FWIW the only book about the zone system that made any sense to me -- much clearer guide than the Adams trio).

 

<p>

 

All the pics were taken with the tilting Rollei SL66, and he raves and raves about it (his pics speak eloquently for themselves.) Sounded a fascinating camera, that I gather had very limited sales here in the UK.

30,000 years ago, our neolithic ancestors did what? They painted images of the natural world on their cave walls (and hoped it would help them kill more deer/mammoths). Seems like a pretty deep human impulse (deep enough to keep the world knee high in cameras anyway).

 

<p>

 

The great thing about Andy Goldsworth -- a truly wonderful artist -- is his use of photographs to record works of art that are deliberately and defiantly "temporary". I recall a BBC film about him in 1989, in which he was given a DVC and a stills camera on a trip to the Arctic Circle, where he constructed simply miraculous ice sculptures, that by their nature lasted only a few hours. Richard Long is another wonderful environmental artist, of course.

 

<p>

 

Ansel Adams belongs to a earlier, different American tradition; a kind of tamed sublime, growing out of the earlier wilderness painters of the C19th; full of awe, but not very frightening (and perfect poster fodder because of it). Robert Hughes writes very well on this in his recent book, AMERICAN VISIONS (accompanying a tv series of the same name). His images are about permanance, great brooding vistas older than time itself. A different kind of religious/spiritual thang, perhaps more Old Testament?

 

<p>

 

Last note; is there any chance you might give your thesis a snappier title!!?? Those "X of Y and Y of X: the X'ics of Y'ology" titles are a little overworked!

 

<p>

 

Lucky you having such a fun thing to think and write about.

I agree with Shun.

 

<p>

 

I have tried doing both at the same time (and sometimes also do super 8 on top of the other two.) Even when working through them in rotation, you cant help favouring one over the other(s).

 

<p>

 

It starts to get careless when endlessly diving back into your bag to wrestle out the next bit of gear breaks you concentration.

 

<p>

 

Having said that, doing video CAREFULLY and not just hosing it around at the end of two waving arms, can be just as satisfying as stills photography.

 

<p>

 

I have two golden rules for the videoing I do; 1) NO zooms (except to reframe) and secondly, locked off shots, (with DVC sharing shame Arca Swiss B1 on Manfrotto 190 I use for my stills camera).

 

<p>

 

Pans and tilts look just awful unless you use a good fluid head. If you have to do them "manually" just try to do them very, very, slowly. The usual rule is that an object should take between 3 to 5 seconds to pass from one side of frame to other (escpecially if it's a strong vertical, to prevent strobing on the television screen).

 

<p>

 

I promise you, it makes the final sequences much easier to view afterwards. And hold your shots for a minimum of 15 seconds (which I warn you, feels very long indeed!!)

 

<p>

 

Enjoy yourself in all your media!

Ah, pushing -- of course, it might affect it -- the extra development might bring out whatever small effect the Xray has had... Hmmm.

I finally managed to persuade a UK airport to let me have my film hand inspected (in a small, regional, Scottish airport, not Heathrow!!) -- which was fine till they got to a bag full of 120 roll film -- which they just did not recognise. So, through the Xray it went, without apparent mishap I have to say.

 

<p>

 

And no, it wont affect pushed film -- remember, the pushing only happens when the film is developed, the chemical content of the film stays the same!! All you do is expose it to less light, you dont change the film's physical character when you push...

Watching the World Cup this week, and seeing the massed ranks of the Canon 600's round the edge of the pitch, (with Canon white outnumbering Nikon black 4 to 1, for anyone interested!) -- it prompts the question, what do sports journalists do with their tele-monsters, when they fly?

This weeks ENTERTAINMENT WEEK�s video section reviews a rather interesting sounding film that might be relevant to you. Called "Photographers", its released by National Geographic, and costs $19.95.

 

<p>

 

"The life of the lone shutterbug wandering the globe on assignment for NG isn�t all sunstreaked canyons and Casbah nights. As this snappy documentary shows in close-up, the men and women dedicated to getting the perfect shot know hard luck as well as romance; bouts with malaria, circling piranhas, near death in a biplane, and travel by camel. Their combined wisdom amounts to an impromptu seminar on photojournalism. Lesson No 1: Never Say Cheese. A."

 

<p>

 

Sounds like one to check out!

I had the same major hassle recently, flying across the Atlantic. There are new 5kg restrictions in place, and they seem strictly adhered to. But as I said elsewhere, after having got indignant, I then used as much charm as I could muster, showed the staff the contents of the bag, and persuaded them to pack it in club section wardrobe -- hint, DONT lose your temper, displays of attitude simply give them the perfect get out clause!)

 

<p>

 

This was Virgin Atlantic, but I know BA are the same. But once on board I could see the logic of it. The overhead bins where the thin ones which open DOWN, and actually, my 15 kg PhotoTrekker would have presented a major danger loaded up there.

 

<p>

 

On three European flights, Swissair, Olympic, and Alitalia, there was no problem at all -- but then those planes had the deep lid UP bins, which swallowed my bag very easily, and seemed much more secure.

 

<p>

 

I am now forced to pack some of my gear in my main baggage, securely wrapped. Needless to say, the last time I flew, a week ago, back from Srkney, BA lost my main luggage (for a couple of hours) and made me feel very stupid when I described the bag as containing a Canon 50E and a Sony 1000 DVC. They obviously thought I was cooking up a rich insurance scam!

 

<p>

 

Incidentally, in my other incarnation as a documentary director, I often travel with a film crew (in America, Europe and the Far East), carrying tens of thousands of dollars worth of sound and film gear. Apart from the camera itself, (100,000 dollar Aaton, which gets a seat all to itself) the rest routinely flies in the hold in steel cases, without mishap, or theft.

 

<p>

 

BUT the crew is insured, and doesn't pay its own excess baggage.

 

<p>

 

Travelling on my own dollar, it is a real dilemma; what do you do with all that stuff? Most of it bought specifically to be used on your trips to exotic parts of the world. I know it can be done, but packing my 70-200L in the hold is just more than I could bear to do.

 

<p>

 

I'm afraid there just doesnt seem to be an easy answer to this one.

Two other things to consider; first, wildlife cameramen/women are specialists -- this is usually ALL they do; so they have to be both good enough, and dedicated enough, to get the gig. Many also tend to specialise in one or two types of wildlife, refining their expertise even further.

 

<p>

 

Secondly, you have to remember the power of grading. When film (and even tape, especially in today's digital world) is prepared for transmission, the power of a good grade to substantially transform and improve the final image is simply staggering. It's like having the best custom print you have ever seen done for EVERY SINGLE frame.

 

<p>

 

I dont shoot wildlife, but stuff I shoot on DVC or Super 8 can EASILY be graded to look like digibeta, or 16mm. What you can now do with super 16, never mind 35mm, is almost limitless.

 

<p>

 

It's essentially like being the chance to shoot your stuff all over again.

The great thing about both Switzerland and Bavaria is that they both look exactly like they're supposed to -- lots of hills alive with the sound of music, and onion domed churches -- and it's not hard to find them both in abundance. Plus lakes, derndl skirts, frothing mugs of beer, cow-bells, feathered hats; they are nothing if not traditional parts of the world.

 

<p>

 

Cities like Munich, or Geneva, are, by contrast, lively modern cities, with nice historical areas, as well as more modern stuff, powerhouses of strong cultures and economies. And both have long and resonant histories too, as I am sure we all know.

 

<p>

 

Gute Reise!

Although not as dramatic as the highlands, Southern Scotland (usually called "the borders" is full of beautiful landscape, as well as historical architectre (ruins of sacked abbeys a particular speciality).

 

<p>

 

Underrated, but especially beautiful, IMO, is the south west corner; Galloway and Kirkcudbrightshire (pronounced "ker-koo-bre-shire" or as near as dammit).

 

<p>

 

Lovely soft landscape and spectacular light (if youre lucky!)

 

<p>

 

Enjoy.

The first time I ever visited the Grand Canyon, it was shrouded in mist; so I had to make do with the near by IMAX centre, with its Grand Canyon film. Now that is what Susan Sontag would call the ultimate postmodern surrender of the "real" to the "image"!

In English "English" we call "fanny packs" "bum-bags" which I suppose Americans wont like. Maybe there's a nice neutral -- French, maybe?

 

<p>

 

Anyway, I agree with James Tarquin; the Lowe Pro Orion is too big to sit very easily on either your "bum" or "fanny". It sticks out far too far. However, worn round the side, over your hip, with waist strap, and shoulder strap, it works really well, although more often than not has to be placed on the ground to remove stuff, (which defeats its purpose I think.) The only down side with this is the backache walking squint then gives you...

Oh sorry, I may have misunderstood you. I assumed "on foot" meant you would be using a train, or hiring a car. If it really means "on foot" then within London, the only landscape you will find are the parks, of which the best is Hampstead Heath, to the North West.

Near Stuttgart you will find the Black Forest (towards Freiburg).

 

<p>

 

Pretty bleak and moody this time of year, but well worth a walk (it's no more than a couple of hours drive -- I think, it's been a while since I last visited this corner of Germany). In Stuttgart itself, apart from the Mercedes factory, there is the fantastic James Stirling Staatsgalerie, one of the most stunning pieces of modern architecture in Europe.

 

<p>

 

Around London. Hmmm. You have to travel quite far to reach "countryside". Towards Brighton to the South gets you both coast (pretty built up) and the Downs (good bracing walks). To the West, gets you out to Oxford, and beyond that, the Cotswolds, (picturesque villages, rolling hills, nice pubs) possible in a day (admittedly a longish day). Each is about a 60 minute train journey, 2 hours by car, depending on traffic, and your willingness to use stick shift and drive on the "wrong" side of the road.

 

<p>

 

A three hour journey out of London (by train, four hours by car) will get you to the edges of "the West Country", the very beautiful counties of Somerset, Devon and Dorset. For "nature" (landscape, and possibly wildlife too), I suspect this might be your best bet. Cornwall is even better.

 

<p>

 

Three hours north, and you'll be in striking distance of Derbyshire, and even Yorkshire, with their moorlands and hills. Hard to do in a day though.

 

<p>

 

Sorry that this is so vague!

 

<p>

 

Good luck (and EMail me if you want to bounce more specific locations off me).

Of the older Rolleiflexes, the C model, from the early fifties, (1952 I think) with the Schneider Xenotar, is generally cheaper than the later models, often substantially. (It has no light-meter, and the Xenotar is less highly prized, wrongly in my view, than the Zeiss Planar that the C model also used). I have one, and it is absolutely fantastic.

One further note. If you do take the rental route, then Beta TV cameras are fairly easy to get the hang of -- even if they do look a little intimidating. They are, basically, just larger, pro-spec versions of consumer models.

 

<p>

 

However, I wonder if most production facilities would let a complete rookie hire their stuff? I'm a bit pessimistic about that!

 

<p>

 

Renting an Arriflex, or an Aaton 16mm camera is a completely different matter! They look simpler, but you will need to learn how to change magazines -- cameramen become cameramen by doing this job as an assistant, for years! It is very, very difficult to use a 16mm film camera on your own!

 

<p>

 

I have happily used Betacams on a number of occasions, for transmission quality shooting, but I wouldn't dream of using a 16mm camera without a lot of coaching!

 

<p>

 

A final, final note. Do you have any idea just how good, and how dedicated the people who make these films are? They are NOT amateurs!! I am sorry to disillusion you, but there is virtually no chance on earth that you will come anywhere near the quality of stuff that channels like Discovery transmit. Most of it is originated by BBC colleagues of mine based in Bristol, drawning on a global network of specialists, with highly, highly specialised equipment.

 

<p>

 

They do NOTHING else but wildlife photography, and very often, film only one or two species in one or two locations.

 

<p>

 

We are all in awe of them, and we do this stuff for a living!

 

<p>

 

However, dont let me dissuade you from having a go. Using video, or moving film, and then editing it, is enormous fun!

For near transmission quality, the best bet is the Sony VX 1000 DVC; (digital Hi-8). About 3000 USDollars? (Check your B&H ads). However, although they have a 20:1 zoom, I doubt you'd get the long lens quality that you're after. Other than that, you are into very, very big bucks indeed. TV standard Beta SP cameras are at least 30000 -- but you can rent them from any reputatble production house. Again though, you're stuck with one zoom lens, and no chance of using longer primes.

 

<p>

 

You will also have to live with NTSC format (assuming you buy and use in the US), which is pretty inferior.

 

<p>

 

Film formats are even more expensive because of the price of stock (never mind the long lenses you will need). Most of the wildlife television that you see is shot on 16mm (with a HUGE amount of film not used). Thousands, and thousands, and thousands....

Not only is it an optical illusion, but it's one of the oldest naturally occurring optical illusions known to man -- the Ancient Greeks wrote copiously about it.

 

<p>

 

It's also the source of the big goof in APOLLO 13. Tom Hanks in his backyard, spell-bound by the moon, holds out his hand, but produces an impossible piece of perspective (but Ron Howard had dramatic license...)

I haven't seen this particular documentary, but if it is like his other stuff, then I can imagine its virtues.

 

<p>

 

It will almost certainly have been shot on film, not video. Because American television does not have a huge appetite for this kind of factual programming, this means that what does get through the network net, tends to be of the highest quality, and with a prestige to match. I can imagine the kind of budget he will have been working to, even for a cash-strapped PBS -- and it will have been huge!

 

<p>

 

The other thing that is worth saying is that this type of moving photography has a big advantage over stills work. I have worked with many really good camera men/women, British and American, who have fantastic powers of composition, both with moves, and with stills (and yes, pans and tilts are very hard to do!) but you shouldn't underestimate the power of a sequence of shots to seduce you!

 

<p>

 

Anyone who has worked in a cutting room will know the power that a sequence of even indifferent shots can achieve when artfully combined. Often, if you were to take a shot out of a film, and duplicate it as a still, the result can be anti-climactic. Stills have to work on their own, without music, movement, script, and the emotions of an evolving story!

 

<p>

 

In terms of brilliant video/film stills composition, can I recommend you keep an eye open for an A&E BIOGRAHY strand film, on Martin Luther King, directed by John Okumfrah -- I have never seen the South shot so dramatically (on digi-beta, with heavy use of filters, shutter speeds, and manipulated white-balancing -- and a brilliant eye.)

 

<p>

 

There is another series that A&E showed earlier this year (but will almost certainly repeat) called American Visions, a history of American art and culture (and landscape, naturally) presented by Robert Hughes. The films on Washington, and the western wilderness, both contain fabulous "photography" of continental America, both rural and urban.

 

<p>

 

There IS good stuff on American television, even in terms of photography, but you just have to look harder for it!!

There's MF gear, and there's MF gear... Surely Benbo/Manfrotto dont really mean that a TLR is too much for their 3001/190! I have one, and use it with both a Mamiya 6 and a Rolleiflex; and it works perfectly! After all, a TLR extends less than a 35mm SLR, and usually weighs not much more.

 

<p>

 

A second thought; I am very tall, and find using the TLR on the tripod a real pleasure (ie dont have to extend it all the way, and can look down into the viewfinder, rather than have to stoop and squint).