deardorff8x10

You need to use enough strobe power to get around f64 with a 300 if

you want to get a pretty tight view. For whole body with a 300mm,

maybe f32-f22. Keep in mind the extension factor for a closeup. If

you want the "classic" portrait longer lens, you need a 450-500/19" or

even 600.

This would require maybe 2400ws strobes or a bit more. If you yse

antural light, you would be outside with reflectors on a light

overcast day, and that should work

I worked once on a shoot with him. I am not sure what you mean by his

technique, because his work seems excellent, but a bit generic to me.

He used simple lighting setup with softboxes and a big studio. An ad

exec I know said that he is noted for pretty much delivering what the

ad director is looking for, and I think he is very flexible in

approach. He has a very outgoing personality and is excellent at

"buttering" people up and directing their moods.

There was an article on him in View Camera or its sister publication

Camera Arts not that long ago if I recall correctly. In that, it

stated that he uses LF, MF and 35mm.

Sorry not to be more helpful.

I have Leica and SWC. The SWC would be better for architecture due to

the fact that you can put a ground glass on the back to check

everything (focus, framing, depth of field, etc.) I think it is

marginally easier to level due to the built in bubble. Assuming there

is enough light, the SWC has huge depth of field, so I never found

focusing an issue. I think it is a great all around camera, but if you

already have Leica and no hassy stuff, I would stick with Leica. For

good leveling in either case, you need a tripod.

However, I agree with the last post -- for really good architectural

photos, you need front rise and tilts at least. I uase a view camera

for that, but it is a lot of work! I have not used the hybrid medium

format cameras with movements because they are expensive and more

fiddly than a view camera.

My bottom line is that for nice "snapshots" use a Leica, for

professional architectural work use a view camera -- other options are

a compromise.

Michael

I have the older Nocti that is also e60, but with the round, vented

separate hood. The hood is fairly shallow, I suppose to avoid more

vignetting than there already is. I like the hood. While it blocks

the viewfinder a bit, the vent helps. I would have thought that the

newer squarish hood would have blocked more stray light than the older

round one.

My lens has two studs on the barrel for attaching the hood. If your

lens has these, maybe the old hood would work. Alternatively, you

could probably tape it on, but that would be ugly. Since the lenses

are the same optically, perhaps you could either swap with someone or

sell/repurchase to get the older style hood.

You should look at either Provia or Velvia. Both would work, though I

feel that Velvia captures better some subtle differences in greens due

to slightly higher contrast. I have not tried pushing Provia. If

things are dark and you want small apertures for high DOF, you may

have long exposures -- provia is better for this, as it does not have

color shifts with long exposures.

Finally, I suggest getting a white/gold two sided reflector (like

Photoflex) to help brighten the scene and perhaps some shadows.

Sometimes shadows are very blue, so you might want to get a 81B filter

(or use gold reflector). These can also be corrected in Photoshop, of

course.

Michael

I had a CL. The meter worked, but was flaky -- sometimes it wouldn't

work, but turning it on and off would let it work -- perhaps there was

a loose contact (I never tried to get it fixed).

I did not have mechanical problems except for one. The take up spool

has plastic tines where you insert the film leader. I used to always

fold the film around to make sure it caught, but one day while

rewinding, I broke off one of the plastic tines on the take up spool

(I was able to fix it). Thus, be careful with that and the camera is

fine.

Together with a small lens like the 40 Rokkor or 35 summicron

non-aspheric, you have a great small package -- much lighter and

smaller than an m6.

I bought a 2.8 E from Ken Hansen photo in NY. They have a wide

selection of cameras, plus straps, cases, etc. They are not on line,

though.

Mine has a built in meter which I don't use, but I check it against my

handheld and it seems very accurate, usually right on, but sometimes

+/- 1/2 to 1 stop. I guess it could be used as backup.

Accessories are expensive (especially hoods), but I have found many on

e-bay. Finally, the advantage of the Bay III 2.8 is that accessories

are still made, but they are extremely expensive (i.e. rubber hood for

$120!)

I have a Rollei TLR and Hasselblad. Since I cannot change lenses on

the TLR and have not used a Mamiya TLR, this may not be totally useful.

I find these very different. While both are OK in the studio with

flash, outside, I find I can use the TLR a lot more hand-held. While

I have done that with Hassy, it is more difficult due to the size and

mirror slap.

For close-ups and macro, the Hassy is great due to extension tubes. I

can also use graduated filters, polarizer, etc. much more easily,

which would be important for landscapes. For some compositions, the

parallax error of the TLR is sort of an issue. Also, with a Rollei,

one cannot do depth of field preview, which is good for landscape.

Finally, with Hassy, one can have multiple film backs for BW and

color, different speeds, etc. which is a great advantage. Overall,

hassy is a flexible system that allows you to do more, but you pay for

that.

For simple landscape, portraits, learning medium format, etc. TLR is fine.

Michael Waldron

I use a 100xl on a 5x7 camera with no problem. Either there is a problem with the lens or mounting (maybe it there is a font "swing" out of alignment).

Michael

FWIW, in one of the Ansel Adams books in the series Camera, Negative,

Print (I am pretty sure it was the Camera), he shows a picture of an

egg lit straight on against a light background that shows the same

effect. This is probably the same thing.

Regards,

Michael

I use a 0.9ND = 3 stops. This works for me, though not in bright sun with 100 film. For most situations, it is OK. I sometimes use Velvia = 40 speed.

You should probably get a 5 stop ND filter to be sure in bright light, but that will be a bit dark for twilight, overcast and shadow.

Is there any way to make an adjustment by refocusing a certain amount

for different f stops or is that too difficult?

Thanks

Michael

I think the lenses are about the same. The Hassy body is smaller and

lightly, so for travelling, etc. I think it is much better for

handheld, although that may not be important to you. Also, 6x7 for

some is better than 6x6 -- depends what you like.

I would handle both and choose what feels comfortable. Often, it is

easier to rent hassy lenses

Michael Waldron

1. 38 Biogon on hassy SWC

2. Schneider 110 XL for LF (very sharp and light, great coverage)

3. Noctilux

4. 35mm Summicron

5. Goertz 19" Artar (480mm is a long lens, but really sharp classic

process lens with unique color signature; heavy in Copal 3!)

My most used lens is probably a Schneider 305 G-Claron FWIW - great

bokeh and fantastic coverage, but perhaps not as nice as lenses above!

Hi-

I have a Rolleiflex with bay 3 2.8 planar. What do people use as the

best Rolleinar for tighter headshots? I seems from what I would

gather that the #1 (1m - 0.5m) would be best, since at 1m, I am

getting close.

Do those of you who do portraits have the whole set?

Thanks,

Michael

HI-

I use the lee filter system and it fits all my lenses (most are 67) via different adapters (which are a bit expensive, unfortunately). However, for 40.5, it might be too big. Also, they make a filter holder that is cheap and attached with a rubber band around the lens for those that don't have a filter ring.

I currently use a 5x7 Deardorff with 4x5 back, and sort of switch back and forth between those two. I have rented an 8x10 DD several times. Here are the main differences I found:

1) weight and bulk is an issue.

Most of my lenses are fairly light work on both cameras. However, they are not as heavy as the 300 f5.6 mounted in Copal 3 that comes with the 8x10 when I rent it. If you want a lens like that, it makes a big difference relative to a g-claron or other mid-sized lens.

For travelling, I can fit film, lenses and camera into a backback and carry on to planes. I probably couldn't do that with 8x10 (but haven't tried). One would probably have to check the camera or lenses and carry on film.

The main issue for me was that the film is heavy. 8x10 holders weigh a lot and are big. I can easily carry 20-50 Quickloads, but 5 8x10 holders and boxes of film plus a big tent adds up. That matters only if you want to take a lot of pictures.

2) With 4x5, I can use polaroid to doublecheck focus, exposure, etc, though this is a minor point.

3) I love 8x10 because the ground glass is so big -- composing an image is very different. With some distance under the focusing hood, you can see the whole 4x5 image, which I cannot do with 8x10, so you have to move around with the hot spot and put together the image in your head. This is more abstract, and I find this leads me to concentrate more with 8x10, but this is probably my own failing with 4x5.

4) Unless one is making huge prints like Avedon or Misrach, quality is probably not that big of an issue. However, an 8x10 chrome is really beautiful!

If I spent more time photographing, I would definitely buy an 8x10 based on my experiences.

HI-

<p>

I recently purchased some Portra in 5x7 and need to get it developed.

I went to my regular 2 New York City labs (LTI and Baboo), who said

they could do e-6 but not c-41 in that size due to the format of their

processor and not having the correct hangers. I called a few other

labs to no avail.

<p>

Does anyone have a suggestion?

<p>

Thanks

I have been using pyro with HP5 and FP4, scanning it in RGB like the

other folks here. The theoretical advantage of pyro is that you get

the stain more in the highlights, and paper is more sensitive to the

blue light (inverse of yellow). I have found that by adjusting the

colors pre-scan and using more blue, I get the same effect of "creamy"

highlights with slightly greater "range" -- the resulting scans can

almost look like platinum. However, since the negative density range

is below that of most scanners, the non-blocked up aspect of pyro is

less important. One could probably do the same thing using curves.

However, as others noted, I do some contact printing as well and like

to keep options open.

I have a 1640, and it is very hard to get the negative in sharp focus

as other posters have noted. However, especially in B&W, one can use

a lot of unsharp mask and still make ok prints at up to about 12x12"

(30x30cm). There is a lot of noise in the dark parts, as well as some

banding (so there are slight streaks of color) as well as flare. The

1680, according to reviews, has a focus adjustment via the driver and

is higher resolution, DMAX, etc. However, film scanners are still

better, in my opinion.

Hi-

<p>

I have the Pentax digital spot meter. It clearly is IR sensitive,

becuase when I put the #87 opaque filter in front, I still get

readings which are correlated to illumination. Using Maco, I also got

accurate exposures that way. Of course, it is tricky to aim the

meter, then keep it there while putting the filter in front, etc., but

it did work. I did not try calibrating the film to N+1 etc. I assume

that it would respond in some manner like normal film.

Hi-

<p>

I have been using PMK and FP4 (less stain but nice) and HP5 (more

stain) in 4x5. However, the idea of quickload bw is nice, so I am

asking if anyone has experience with Acros and PMK. Is the stain

nice? Any suggested time/temp N+/- ?

<p>

Thanks,

Hi-

<p>

I have a 3036 and agree that it is pretty rigid. I have used

Deardorff 8x10 and 4x5 on it.

<p>

I also have a 3 series carbon gitzo which seems more "dead" -- the

Bogen seems to vibrate more. Also, while I have had the bogen for a

long time, it seems to need tightening from time to time. I also find

that the legs flex or bow out as weight is applied when fully

extended, but this has not really been apparent as any lack of

sharpness in the images. The tripod is big and heavy, but gets the

job done. I have not used a 5 series gitzo for some time, but I do

remember it not having the leg flex issue, but as I said, it is more

of a conceptual than real issue.

Hi-

<p>

I am about to start using type 55 p/n again. I have heard reference

to a special Calumet tank or box for holding the sulfite solution and

exposed and processed negs. I could not find that, but will

eventually go to the store. If that is not an option, what do other

people use to hold the solution?

<p>

Also, since the print needs to be coated, how do people store that in

the field to help avoid dust, etc.?

<p>

Thanks for any help.