deardorff8x10

I have a 19" (480) Goerz Artar (not red dot) in a copal 3, and while the lens is a bit heavy, it is nothing like the plasmats. While the lens is coated, it seems to be a bit more flare prone and cooler in color than more modern lenses I have. It is a sharp lens and it is a nice length for for 8x10 and 5x7. On 4x5, it is pretty long. It has huge coverage. I have used it for 8x10 portraits and it is nice, although I needed about f32-f45. I paid $300 for it, which is a good deal I think. The Fuji is undoubtedly a better deal given that it is modern.

There will be a difference in parts avialability eventually between the older C lenses and the newer CF/CFi. I think C lenses also had a self timer feature that was removed.

 

The bodies are effectively the same, except that ones with the newer finder don't have the bubble level on the body. Having used both, I like the newer finder a bit better, since it is easier to see the bubble level, but that is not really a big deal. I always use 6x6, but it also has framelines for 645 (the older one needs a mask).

 

I now have the 903 and it is nice in that it has a square (not round) shade that I imagine is more effective and uses bay 60 filters.

I have used it on 8x10 (Deardorff) stopped down to f45. I wouldn't really say it covers the format becuase the corners are very dark, nearly black (though not with the black of vignetting, except possibly on the last 1/4" of the corner. I have not used a center filter, though I doubt that would help the corners a whole lot.

 

On a practical note, it is nearly impossible for me on my camera to get the lens exactly centered with respect to the film back, rendering it basically useless, unless I want to crop. It would be great for 4x10 or 5x10, if that is what you want to do.

Regarding color, the only other thing I can add is that it is nice to be able to use individual sheets. High contrast, I might use print film, or use faster film as it gets dark, etc. One can do this with Hassy, but not M7.

 

When I was starting out, I used a speed graphic, which does allow some form of rangefinder focusing for "grab" shots. However, very limited in the movement dept. You might want to look at a Linhof technika, which allows rangefinder focusing on some shots. Combined with a graphmatic or new Fuji multi sheet film-holder, you can get off a lot of shots. It would be heavier, though and is a compromise.

 

Also, I think the main issue is less one of sharpness than of tonality. Both are sharp, but LF is smoother due to less grain. Also, I find specular points nicer, as they don't "spread" as much and become diffuse. Part of this, I think, is infectious developement in B&W (I don't know enough about color to say). Outside of the lens sharpness and contrast, there is film sharpness and contrast. I don't have a scientific test, but I use hassy and LF, and I think that I get a bit more dynamic range out of provia in LF.

 

Good luck,

 

Michael

I use 110 a lot, then 180, followed by 300. I like the 300 on the 4x5, but it is a bit short on 5x7. I have a 480, but I can only focus to about 10', so it is not that practical.

I use the pro 100 color for proofing, etc., but I use Provia, which is nice because the ASA is the same. The polaroid sems to be a bit more contrasty than provia, losing detail in the shadow, while provia seems to get a bit more shadow detail. Thus, it might be close for your velvia. You can download the spec sheets for pro 100 and velvia and compare.

 

However, the cost of polaroid is more than velvia, so is is cheaper to make one bracket shot. The obvious advantage is that you can check focus.

I have an old case for rollei accessory (maybe a rolleinar close up?) that has a loop on the back to attach it to the strap. Ususally, I don't attach it, but leave the finder on the camera, though.

When I had that camera, I used a Lee 67 filter mount and it fit fine. Some 67 have the right thread pitch and others don't. From what I undertand, the series 7 are to be held in with the hood and have a thicker spacing on one side so they don't touch the lens.

I was in a store recently, asking about fast lenses (since I want low

depth of field for a project). The man showed me a 150 2.8 Xenotar

(originally for Technika), which was a bit expensive, but seemed nice.

 

I could find much on the internet. Does anyone have experience with

this lens? I am not overly concerned about sharpness, more smoothness

of out of focus areas.

 

Thanks

I would be wary of using any yellow or stronger filter with snow and the bluish hazy light often seen in winter. It is very hard to capture snow with a filter, since it often comes out looking grimy (due to the darkening of blue light reflecting deeper in the snow crystals), unless that is the look you want. You need to try a bit before using -- sometimes any filter is too much.

Yes the 40 advice was for through the lens close up. Close up, there is a real parallax problem with the SWC, so you need the ground glass for both focus and composition.

The 903 doesn't distort in the sense of barrel distortion where straight lines at the edge of the frame curve. If you tilt it, you get "normal" wide angle view with a lot of foreshortening (i.e. converging lines), which is the same with the 40. I use the 903 without tripod a lot, either stopped down to 16 or for things further away. For any super closeup (10-20") with the 903, you need a tripod! However, I have done OK shots of things 24" away. I sort of recall that the SWC has more DOF, so you may want to look into that. If you do a lot of wide angle near/far or closeup handheld, then it is probably better to get the 40. Otherwise, I think the SWC is pretty convenient. It is nice on its own if you want to walk around and take pictures.

I just bought one for around 2,900. That is about the price. Like the poster above, I think it is good relative to the 40, but depends how you work.

I have both a clearsight and RRS for two different hasselblads. Clearsight is a fine company. Looking at the web, I would go with the clearsight (and might buy it soon myself).

I have 903 -- almost any tripod is fine, since the camera is small and has no mirror. For the 501, you should be OK with most tripods if you use mirror pre-release and a cable release. I have successfully used a leitz table top tripod with cheap ball head and a 501 with 150.

 

You will need to try before you buy, as different camera/tripod combos will be more or less prone to vibrations.

 

Make sure that your tripod goes high enough (they also get more flexy at longer extention). Also make sure if you have a center column that it is stable enough, as it will be far more vibration prone than the three tripod legs. I use a 300 series carbon gitzo withour center column, but I also use 4x5.

I use the SWC because it is small and light and can be carried around. Using it, I have the option of a nice handheld or something that can come close to a view camera. check out recent work by Lee Friedlander, especially "The Desert Seen" and some of his portrait work -- all done handheld with the SWC. Contrary to what one poster said, I do find it easier to use than a view camera, which I also use a lot. I have not really used to 40 (I borrowed it briefly). However, the great thing about using the SWC with other hassy stuff is that it is bay 60, so everything fits.

With Hassy, I have two routes. First, I have the Lee system, which uses an adapter and 4x4 gels plus a big hood (I also use this on large format). Second, I have a Bay 60-67 adapter. I have a number of view camera lenses that all take 67, which is my standard, and I use B&W screw in filters. With the adapter, I do not vignette on 60 and beyond, though I do in 38mm for hassy. The B60 are too expensive generally. That said, I have bought two filters used in B60 -- a yellow #6 and green #11 since I use them a lot. I find the #6 or 8 yellow useful for many siuations, and the green good for portraits, but more importantly landscapes without too much shadows (often darkened too much by yellow or green) but a lot of green foliage -- the green enhances contrast nicely. I rarely use reds. Sometimes, a polarizer will do the same thing. I have looked at Tiffen and Hoya in Bay 60, but didn't like the quality, as the glass seemed loose. However, I use tiffen in 4x4" and they are great -- it is something like the "Hollywood line" used in movies, but they are a bit expensive.

 

Orange is Ok, but you really have to try, as I don't like the over- filtered look. The good thing with the 4x4 system is that while the holder is expensive (like 150-200), you can get gel filters that are cheap (10-15) and try a lot to see what you like.

One thing I am going to try is to buy one of the B&W "proxar" type close up lenses. They come in different focal lengths (though the shortest is about 250mm) many sized threaded mounts, so If I can find one with the same size and thread pitch as either a copal 3s I have or maybe a copal 1, I will just screw it in instead of the front element and take the back element off. I will have so see if it will fit, but it looks promising. If I can do this, I will let you know.

 

Michael

You can also cut a piece out of a bicycle inner tube or old rubber glove and cut a small central hole. Then put this between the plate and camera. This worked for me (I am using the arca swiss plate on a 5x7).

 

Good Luck

One thing you can consider is buying a used Mamiya RZ (has a bellows, so good for studio work) or Hassy (advantage is that you can handhold) outfit with a couple of used lenses which would probably cost about $3-4,000. You will then be able to sell them later with little loss of money if they don't work out or you decide you don't want to do photo professionally. In the interim, you would learn a lot about lighting, etc. with your strobes (I use profoto and really recommend it). Ultimately, I really believe that understanding lighting is far more important than digital vs. film, format, etc.

 

If you are doing a lot of product stuff in a studio, you could also consider a cheap view camera with polaroid which you could buy for about $750 and the film is about $1-2 per shot. You may learn a lot more about photography that way, but it is a bit cumbersome.

 

I may get some heat for this (I cannot claim to be a digital expert), but I think digital brings in more variables. If you use Provia all the time, it varies only a tiny bit if you use a good lab. You will see clearly if exposure is off, what color casts there are, etc. With digital, you have also have gamma, white balance, file format etc. that will impact results. If you understand all of that already, you are ok, but digital will put in more potential steps in the process to learn.

 

I have not used the most recent crop of digital cameras (I have rented a high end digital back -- really great!!!), but in talking to people who do, I would say the following:

 

Most D-SLRs have slightly less dynamic range than much slide film (they are like Velvia). Color neg still will be better in contrasty scenes. B&W even more so if you want to go that route.

 

Film is good because you can store a lot of images fairly easily. Many D-SLR people throw out "bad" pictures, but then you can't go back to review your progress a year later.

 

D-SLRs probably have better auto focus, auto exposure, etc. than MF if that is important to you.

 

Look at MF film/processing costs, maybe $4-6 per 120 roll or 35-50 cents a shot, so digital will eventually be cheaper if you shoot a lot.

 

News/sports pros use almost only digital since it facilitates their workflow and speed (I don't get the sense this is what you want to do).

 

Pros doing products in a studio are mostly digital because it is a lot faster and the depreciation of digital is made up for by increase in volume and cost savings (mostly one's time). They mostly use large format or MF. Some people shots in studios are done with MF digital now, but it does not yet seem to be the norm.

 

Pros doing people/models on location are mostly film based because it is fairly fail-safe (they use 4x5 or MF mostly). Also, they are maybe more conservative and just want to deliver the goods and do what they know works. You can split your film between labs, ship separately, etc. -- what happens if your micro-drive crashes?

 

Hope that is helpful. Ultimately, you should look at what you want to do (studio, location, etc.) and get what makes that easiest.

I had something like this once. It may be that the Polaroid holder is not seating correctly and that there is a generalized light leak causing some kind of internal flare. I am now more careful -- since I have a graflex back, I can use the sliding bars to lock the holder into place.

 

You might want to mount the hodler, then hold a flashlight inside the body from the front to check for leaks.

I did the same think in Santa Barbara recently. If you can get someone to help, I suggest getting a folding reflector (like two sided white/silver) so that you can augment flash or do without if the light is right. I find that this can be a bit easier than flash.

 

One problem to consider is that with NPH (400), you will have 250-500th at f11-16 if it is sunny, which means that you will need a lot of flash. You might want to bring an ND filter or NPS (160) if you think the light will be bright so you can save a bit of flash.

Regarding using a CF with the 110 - on 4x5, I never felt the need, even with fairly extreme movments. With 5x7, it would be good periodically, though the dimness on the corners for more extreme movements can easily be corrected in printing. Thus, I don't think it is needed. With the 80, I have been OK in 4x5, because the angle is large, I tend to use less rise, and thus tend not to be using more of the center of the image. Once in a rare while, a CF would be good, but again, I typically can get a fine image with post processing.

 

I don't think one can judge from the GG, as there is natural falloff unless one looks along a line from eye through the GG corner towards the lens. It is tricky to judge that falloff.

I am glad you like the new kit. WHile I never had the 21-28 viewfinder, I have used it and think that using a finder to see if you like a lens is a bit tricky. Before getting a 21 or 24, you should try to borrow something. I had the 24, but ultimately did not love it (I like the 21 much more). However, even using the viewfinder, i found that the lenses' characteristics were not really made "clear".

 

Regards,

 

Michael

With the Hassy, you can use an extension tube (they come in different lengths) and this will give close up without distortion. They are not too expensive used (50-75). With these you can focus from 3' to almost 3" depending on the length. You will have to do exposure compensation for the added length, which is a pain until you are used to it, as for a given length tube, the effective change is different.

 

Michael Waldron